From henk at amsterdamned.org Mon Oct 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 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] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). 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 PH Passed Hand 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 UPH UnPassed Hand 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 Mon Oct 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for September 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 81 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 33 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 27 hermandw (at) skynet.be 22 Gampas (at) aol.com 21 john (at) asimere.com 20 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 17 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 17 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 14 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 14 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 13 geller (at) nifty.com 11 svenpran (at) online.no 6 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 6 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 6 twm (at) cix.co.uk 6 adam (at) irvine.com 5 swillner (at) nhcc.net 5 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 4 mustikka (at) charter.net 4 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 andre.kriner (at) gmail.com 2 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 2 J.P.Pals (at) uva.nl 1 mikopera (at) nyc.rr.com 1 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 1 dcrc2h (at) hotmail.co.uk 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 1 01:38:35 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:38:35 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/09/2007 19:27:05 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >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. Indeed you make some good points; and I am not in favour of having different rules for beginners, so you persuade me that the current rules whereby misbids are permitted without penalty have to stand, and indeed now is not the time to propose changes. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 1 01:52:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:52:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] October the First is Too Late [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >From the "...sixth sheep..." thread -> Richard Hills (September 27th): >>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 [snip] Herman De Wael (September 27th): >Good analysis Richard. [snip] Richard Hills (October the First): Actually my analysis was a very bad analysis. Although it traversed what would be the technical problem in an ideal world, it totally ignored the psychological problem in the real world. >From the "self-serving?" thread -> David Burn (September 22nd): [snip] >>>when I use the word "cheating" I mean "doing something that >>>a cheat would have done". [snip] >>>And Judas was a tolerable chap. Richard Hills (October the First): Yes, there are four types of cheating: 1. "Clever" cheating - using toe-tapping or finger signals to transmit information to partner. "Clever" because the cheats will usually get away with it until the mechanism is detected. But not-so-clever because unusual success with no apparent reason will attract suspicion and consequent close scrutiny. So once the close scrutiny unearths the mechanism, the cheats will get a ten-year-to-life ban. 2. Stupid cheating - having and using (illegal "fielding") a concealed partnership understanding, and consequently alleging that the CPU was a psyche. Stupid because both real psyches and alleged psyches are highly noticeable deviations from the norm, so immediate corrective action can be taken via a score adjustment and a procedural penalty. Most stupid cheaters would learn from that experience and abandon any future CPU cheating, but no doubt some very stupid cheaters would persist with their pseudo-psyche cheating and so eventually get a ten- year-to-life ban. 3. Quixotic cheating - having but not using (no "fielding") a concealed partnership understanding, due to one partner using a Bruckner Retribution Bid on the other partner's perpetration of a pseudo-psyche (often because one partner disapproves of the other partner's habitual pseudo-psyches). Not detected by the criteria of the EBU "Red Psyche" regulation. But usually the opponents are not damaged by the quixotic cheating, since the usual result of a Bruckner Retribution Bid is that a four- figure windfall penalty drops into the opponents' laps. 4. Common cheating - one partner without design transmits UI, and the other partner self-deludingly rationalises that the demonstrably suggested logical alternative that they choose was "the call that I was always going to make anyway". All four categories fit into David Burn's definition of "doing something a cheat would have done". But..... Spot the deliberate mistake in my above categorisation. Defining Category 4 as "common cheating" is totally contrary to Law and its official interpretation for the past half- century. Rather a simple self-delusion which causes a simple infraction of Law 16 results in a simple score adjustment without any procedural or disciplinary penalty. But because the common incorrect attitude is that a break in tempo is an action of a cheat, low-level club TDs have no hesitation in giving MI rulings, but have great hesitation in giving UI rulings. This is because low-level club TDs and low-level club players assume that labelling one side as the offending side in a Law 16 ruling has a one-to-one correspondence with labelling that side as cheats. Ergo, tweaking Law 75D2 in the 2017 Lawbook, so that MI was reduced and UI was increased, would have the psychological disadvantage at club level in increasing the number of rulings which are director's errors. 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 Mon Oct 1 04:42:14 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:42:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] When should an AC award a PP? Message-ID: <29F5B4D774A246A0B9F87CE429AB0900@erdos> Appeals committees often award procedural penalties, and they do have the right to do so (they have all the powers of the Director except for the power to overrule the Director on a matter of law), but there aren't good guidelines. I looked at Kaplan's articles on the role of an appeals committee. The director is considered to be the expert on ascertaining the facts and interpreting the laws, but not on bridge judgement. And from article 14, "Procedural penalties are rarely established initially by a Committee, although they may be (i.e., if a violation of correct procedure comes to light during a hearing into a related matter). Normally, the penalty is imposed by a Director and is considered by Committee only on appeal.... Still, a Committee should tend strongly to uphold the Director's ruling, unless the case for lessening or removing the penalty is overwhelming, since the Director usually has the best knowledge of the facts, and is the one responsible for the operation of the contest." Therefore, here is what I think the guidelines should be. An appeals committee should freely award or modify a procedural penalty that it believes is justified: For a procedural infraction that was made in the appeal itself (appeal without merit, behavior before the committee). If the facts justifying the penalty or modification were not available to the Director. If the justification for the penalty or modification is a matter of bridge judgement and the judgement was not clear to the Director. If the comittee determines that the level of the penalty was inappropriate for the level of the player who committed the procedural infraction. An appeals committee should normally accept a Director's ruling, but may award or modify a procedural penalty if it believes the Director made a mistake: If the Director had the same facts and basis to award or not award a penalty as the appeals committee. If the infraction is not one which directors normally penalize, even if the infraction came to light in the committee. An appeal committee may not award or modify a procedural penalty: To restore equity (use a non-balancing adjusted score instead). Because the committee ruling is considered enough of a penalty even after the committee removes a penalty imposed by the Director. The "same facts and basis" rule is the one most often violated by AC's, when they impose penalties for improper creation of UI, or flagrant use of UI, or for MI, which the Director chose not to impose. (It is proper for the AC to overrule the Director's bridge judgment that use of UI was or was not flagrant, but when it is flagrant to the Director, the Director should normally decide the penalty.) The "not one which directors normally penalize" applies to infractions such as failing to correct MI at the end of the auction (by the declaring side) or correcting it at the end of the auction (by the defenders). And penalties for "convention disruption" violate both rules. This type of penalty can cause a particularly serious problem when the AC upholds the Director's score ruling but adds a procedural penalty against the non-appealing side. In a KO match, the appealing side can even gain nothing from the appeal but win the match as a result of the penalty. It can also cause a problem when the offending side appeals, gets a score adjustment in its favor, and then unexpectedly winds up worse off because a procedural penalty is added for the original offense which is more than the gain from the score adjustment. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 1 01:35:50 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:35:50 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/09/2007 19:27:05 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >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. Indeed you make some good points; and I am not in favour of having different rules for beginners, so you persuade me that the current rules whereby misbids are permitted without penalty have to stand, and indeed now is not the time to propose changes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070930/0c798f9d/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 1 15:29:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:29:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95C8E27F-63EE-4FF4-9BAB-200E69D7ACE7@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > 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. Those who have never heard of chess or golf already know how to press buttons and how to sign their names. They do not need to understand their respective games before applying those skills. They do not have to practice them. Learning a bidding method is a whole different kettle of fish. It must be learned in context. If it is non-trivial, It may require considerable practice to master it fully. Learning requires trial and error; learning as a partnership inevitably involves some significant potential for confusion and misunderstanding. Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having mastered it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Mon Oct 1 15:57:57 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:57:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <95C8E27F-63EE-4FF4-9BAB-200E69D7ACE7@starpower.net> References: <95C8E27F-63EE-4FF4-9BAB-200E69D7ACE7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200710011357.AA10805@geller204.nifty.com> Something that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact the bridge is inherently a probabilistic game. If your oppts fail to bid a game that goes down only when trumps are 5-0, and they get the only plus score in the room you get a bottom, whereas the other 96% of the time you would have gotten a top. That's just "the rub of the green." Similarly, if your opponents in all innocence forget or screw up a convention most of the time you get a good score. Once in a while the "forget" works out helping the oppts and you get a bad score. That's also just "the rub of the green." There's no law guaraneeing you a good score every time the oppts forget a convention. You just have to take the bitter with the sweet. Of course intentional and repeated psychs of conventions are another kettle of fish altogether..... The above is not intended to refer to those. -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Those who have never heard of chess or golf already know how to press >buttons and how to sign their names. They do not need to understand >their respective games before applying those skills. They do not >have to practice them. Learning a bidding method is a whole >different kettle of fish. It must be learned in context. If it is >non-trivial, It may require considerable practice to master it >fully. Learning requires trial and error; learning as a partnership >inevitably involves some significant potential for confusion and >misunderstanding. > >Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively >prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master >it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having >mastered it. > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 1 17:56:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:56:47 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick Message-ID: In a message dated 01/10/2007 14:30:50 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: >Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively >prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master >it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having >mastered it. Yes; another good reason why forgets or misbids should occur no penalty per se. An ill-considered proposal my me! From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 1 18:01:04 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:01:04 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick Message-ID: In a message dated 01/10/2007 16:57:46 GMT Standard Time, Gampas at aol.com writes: >Yes; another good reason why forgets or misbids should occur no penalty per >se. An ill-considered proposal my me! That should have read "incur". From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 2 04:05:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:05:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having mastered it. [Paul Lamford] Yes; another good reason why forgets or misbids should incur no penalty per se. An ill-considered proposal my me! [nige1] Before risking it at the table, the Sharples brothers refined and practised their version of the Roman 2D opener for a full year. Thus, they avoided the mistakes welcomed by Eric and Paul. Eric is right that - few players take such care over new conventions. - they often make mistakes. - most of their mistakes generate random *good* scores for opponents. - only a few of their mistakes generate random *bad* scores. - although some "mistakes" like "forgetting" Ghestem, not vulnerable, on a weak hand, seem to produce as many good results as bad. Anyway, as a player, I disagree with Paul and Eric. I have to do enough guessing in the bidding and play, to forgo the thrill of random results caused by opponents not knowing and refusing to divulge their methods. Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know would simplify the law and make prevarication harder. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 2 04:51:09 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:51:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: > I have to do enough guessing in the bidding and play, to forgo the > thrill of random > results caused by opponents not knowing and refusing to divulge > their methods. You sure you're not really Bobby Wolf? :-) Who said anything about "refusing to divulge" anyway? Besides you, I mean? > Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know would > simplify the law and make prevarication harder. Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause him to quit the game. From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 2 09:28:16 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:28:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:51:09 -0400 Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > > Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know would > > simplify the law and make prevarication harder. > > Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause him to > quit the game. > Well, I suppose that's one way. If Nigel's "force them to guess" ever becomes law, I'll always make sure I have a coin in my pocket. If forced to guess, I'd list the two (most likely) alternative meanings, assign them to heads and tails, and then spin the coin. If people want to introduce another random element into the game, then let's ensure that it's as near to truly random as possible. 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/20071002/b7414593/attachment.pgp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 2 09:38:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:38:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>I have to do enough guessing in the bidding and play, to >>forgo the thrill of random results caused by opponents not >>knowing and refusing to divulge their methods. Ed Reppert: >You sure you're not really Bobby Wolf? :-) > >Who said anything about "refusing to divulge" anyway? Besides >you, I mean? Richard Hills: In times gone past "refusing to divulge" was indeed very commonplace. In Mike Lawrence's old book "Play Bridge with Mike Lawrence" he noted that one unethical opponent refused to divulge his methods by pretending that he only understood Spanish (which put monolingual Mike at a disadvantage). :-( It is possible that the 2007 version of Law 40 might somewhat strengthen the current 1997 strictures against a player who frequently refuses to fully divulge their partnership's understandings. Nigel Guthrie: >>Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know >>would simplify the law and make prevarication harder. Ed Reppert: >Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause >him to quit the game. Richard Hills: It is possible that Ed Reppert (and myself) will not have to quit the game before 2017 at the earliest. See the debate below exhumed from the blml archives. John Probst (23rd November 2006) >>>>You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? I find it >>>>one of the most difficult points of Law to interpret. "Thou >>>>SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou SHALST NOT correct MI" (in >>>>certain circumstances) and "Thou MAYST create UI" (but >>>>partner has to be ultra careful). The words of the Law I >>>>understand, but what was the intention of the LawMaker - >>>>and "How do we play Bridge?" ? Grattan Endicott (24th November 2006): >>>+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that >>>neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's >>>explanation that there is a misunderstanding between them. >>>Each should continue bidding and explaining his partner's >>>calls on the basis of his own understanding (on which he has >>>based his earlier calls). Only when the bidding is >>>unmistakably unhinged can he learn from that of the problem. >>> >>>But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an >>>instruction or guidance to players that they should explain >>>according to system correctly, but continue to call on the >>>basis of their own understanding. I was wondering how >>>loosely worded that might be on the subject of gaining >>>awareness. It worried me that it might be in the 1992 >>>Commentary, but what it says there is "He must carefully >>>avoid making use of that unauthorized information and must >>>not base any action upon it. He can act upon knowledge which >>>he obtains unmistakably from the subsequent bidding or >>>play." So it appears my mind has remained unreasonably >>>consistent upon the subject. Damage to opponents through an >>>incorrect explanation is to be redressed by score >>>adjustment. >>> >>>Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. I do not even >>>know at this juncture whether they will (or can) resolve the >>>question. They are still in malleable condition. >>> ~ 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 2 09:50:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4701F834.5080101@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: > >> I have to do enough guessing in the bidding and play, to forgo the >> thrill of random >> results caused by opponents not knowing and refusing to divulge >> their methods. > > You sure you're not really Bobby Wolf? :-) > > Who said anything about "refusing to divulge" anyway? Besides you, I > mean? > >> Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know would >> simplify the law and make prevarication harder. > > Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause him to > quit the game. > I believe you two are not talking about the same thing. I think Ed will quickly tell his "guess" when he is merely uncertain, and that his refusal to "guess" is conditional on him knowing absolutely nothing. Nigel OTOH, believes that many players think that if they don't know for certain, they are allowed to say "no agreement" or "not certain". Nigel believes the laws should force these people to explain their "guesses", which are far more certain than Ed's. In that sense, Nigel and Ed are both right. Actually, both are saying that one should explain everything that one knows, which is just what the laws say. So please guys, do not make discussions where there actually aren't any. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Oct 2 14:49:54 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:49:54 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick Message-ID: In a message dated 02/10/2007 03:05:51 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [nige1] >Before risking it at the table, the Sharples brothers refined and >practised their version of the Roman 2D opener for a full year. Thus, >they avoided the mistakes welcomed by Eric and Paul. I certainly do not welcome misbids or forgets; indeed I originally suggested that they should be penalised. Now I concur that the cure (of making them infractions) is worse than the disease, and that this is not the time to make radical law changes. Paul From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 2 16:21:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:21:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> Message-ID: <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:51:09 -0400 > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: >> >>> Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know would >>> simplify the law and make prevarication harder. >> Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause him to >> quit the game. >> > > Well, I suppose that's one way. If Nigel's "force them to guess" ever > becomes law, I'll always make sure I have a coin in my pocket. If > forced to guess, I'd list the two (most likely) alternative meanings, > assign them to heads and tails, and then spin the coin. If people want > to introduce another random element into the game, then let's ensure > that it's as near to truly random as possible. > > > Brian. > Well Brian, the next time you are playing with a partner who makes you a bid that's an exact 50/50 guess, be sure to let us know. In my opinion, such a situation is totally impossible. Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than your opponents do. That "more" translates in you having a 60/40 guess, at least. If you don't tell them which of the two is the 60% probability, you are a cheat. If you decide to follow the 40% probability one, you are a fool. Since I don't want to call you neither a cheat nor a fool, I assume you will tell them which is the 60% option. And if it is truely 50/50, you've earnt yourself a bottle of champagne, and your reasoning above would be true. I consider that a very infrequent happening, and I (as TD) won't believe it if you tell me it is. I'll force you to reveal the 51% option. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 2 18:25:57 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:25:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:21:45 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > > Well Brian, the next time you are playing with a partner who makes > you a bid that's an exact 50/50 guess, be sure to let us know. > In my opinion, such a situation is totally impossible. > Well it happens regularly online, Herman, but I expect you won't count that. So, the last time I can remember it happening in F2F bridge... Well, it would probably be one of the times I was the designated host at the club at which I used to play in England. If you're unfamiliar with the system, each week a different player is designated as a host, and if an odd number of players turn up on the night, the host's partner goes home. Playing as the host usually means you get about as long to discuss a system as you do in online bridge, because you're playing with the last unpaired player to walk through the door, and you only know it when the TD starts the movement. So, what could it have been? RKC or standard Blackwood? Transfers on or off over a 1NT overcall that gets doubled, or over a double of opps 1NT? D0P1 or P0D1? There will have been something... > Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against > his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than > your opponents do. OK, I'll bite. Let's take one of my examples above. Explain to me how playing different contracts somehow helps me decide whether pard plays transfers on or off when the bidding goes (1S)-1NT (15-18)- (dbl) to me. You've got my usual collection, S xx H xxxxx D xxx C xxx. Which are you going to bid, 2D or 2H, and *why*? Since you think the earlier tables were important, let's say that you're 20 boards into the session, you know your partner plays transfers over your opening 1NT, but this is the first time either of you have overcalled 1NT. You want more information? OK, I would usually retain transfers in that situation, and pard has played against me enough times to know it, and pard doesn't usually play transfers in that situation, and I've played against him enough times to know it. Is he trying to follow my system, or am I trying to follow his? I await your explanation with interest. > That "more" translates in you having a 60/40 > guess, at least. If you don't tell them which of the two is the 60% > probability, you are a cheat. If you decide to follow the 40% > probability one, you are a fool. Since I don't want to call you > neither a cheat nor a fool, I assume you will tell them which is the > 60% option. > Herman, you need to review the earlier messages in this thread. The situation postulated is that you don't know what you're playing, and the TD forces you to guess. If I know it's 60-40 in favour of one of the bids, then the TD isn't going to be forcing me to guess. > And if it is truely 50/50, you've earnt yourself a bottle of > champagne, and your reasoning above would be true. I consider that a > very infrequent happening, and I (as TD) won't believe it if you tell > me it is. I'll force you to reveal the 51% option. > And if I honestly believe it to be a total guess, with two possibilities which I can't split (the only circumstances under which a TD would be forcing me to guess), then I'll flip a coin, and go with whatever it "decides". I don't believe you can differentiate between a 49% and 51% possibility when you're talking about possible meanings, but do feel free to convince me otherwise - with an ACTUAL example. 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/20071002/e057d9bd/attachment.pgp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 2 23:31:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:31:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4701F834.5080101@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I believe you two are not talking about the same thing. > >I think Ed will quickly tell his "guess" when he is >merely uncertain, and that his refusal to "guess" is >conditional on him knowing absolutely nothing. Richard Hills: What does Mister De Wael mean by "merely uncertain"? If Mister De Wael intends this scenario: (a) Mister Hills and his partner have implicitly (or explicitly) agreed a partnership understanding, and (b) Mister Hills is "merely uncertain" what that implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding is, due to a rare failure in the elephantine memory of Mister Hills, then (c) Mister Hills will *not* quickly tell his "guess", but instead, (d) Mister Hills will summon the Director, who will require, (e) Mister Hills to leave the table, so that (f) Mister Hills' partner can explain to the opponents the implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding without (g) Mister Hills receiving any UI from partner's explanation, and also without (h) Mister Hills' partner receiving any UI from Mister Hills' incorrect (or correct) "guess". What's the problem? Note that even a correct "guess" provides UI to partner that the partnership is luckily on the same wavelength. Yes, Mister Hills knows that Mister De Wael will now post a zillion words that the above procedure is contrary to the De Wael School interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook, but perhaps those zillion words will be of limited temporal relevance. ;-) 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 Oct 2 23:43:11 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:43:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dealer South Vulnerable East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 2C (1) 2S 3C (2) Pass ? (1) Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request. 10-14 hcp, at least two controls (A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six clubs (could have five clubs with 100 honours), almost always single-suited (could have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K and Q). (2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, instead merely competing for the partscore. You, South, hold: QT8 --- K93 AKT8542 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 3 00:08:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:08:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] When should an AC award a PP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <29F5B4D774A246A0B9F87CE429AB0900@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner asserted: >Appeals committees often award procedural penalties, and >they do have the right to do so (they have all the powers >of the Director except for the power to overrule the >Director on a matter of law), but there aren't good >guidelines. [big snip] Richard Hills quibbles: While the WBF Code of Practice has not been adopted by the ACBL, so technically does not count as ACBL guidelines, many of the Directors in the rest of the world have found the WBF CoP to be good guidelines. WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "The committee may recommend likewise to the Director a review of any disciplinary penalty he may have applied under Law 91A but may not rescind or vary it (powers that it does have in relation to Law 90 penalties). An appeal committee does have the power to apply a disciplinary penalty if the director has not done so and there is found to have been a breach of the laws governing conduct that the Director has not penalized. The WBF recommends the greatest restraint in exercising this power when the Director has not done so and points to the possible alternative of admonishment if a majority of the committee is strongly of the opinion that some action is justified." WBF Code of Practice, 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." WBF Code of Practice, page 9: "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. "In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Oct 3 02:03:16 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:03:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4702DC44.4070702@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dealer South >Vulnerable East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 2C (1) >2S 3C (2) Pass ? > >(1) Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >request. 10-14 hcp, at least two controls >(A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six >clubs (could have five clubs with 100 >honours), almost always single-suited (could >have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K >and Q). > >(2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, >instead merely competing for the partscore. > >You, South, hold: > >QT8 >--- >K93 >AKT8542 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > PASS From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 01:28:52 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:28:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710021628y4ff8f9bvdeeb466f81106ea7@mail.gmail.com> > You, South, hold: > > QT8 > --- > K93 > AKT8542 > > What call do you make? 3H > What other calls do you consider making? 4C and Pass From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 01:46:04 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:46:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710021646h2a16ce50h99746682b0c4906@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dealer South > Vulnerable East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 2C (1) > 2S 3C (2) Pass ? > > (1) Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on > request. 10-14 hcp, at least two controls > (A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six > clubs (could have five clubs with 100 > honours), almost always single-suited (could > have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K > and Q). > > (2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, > instead merely competing for the partscore. > How many clubs, and what distribution, does 3C show? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 3 03:06:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:06:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710021646h2a16ce50h99746682b0c4906@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dealer South >>Vulnerable East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- 2C (1) >>2S 3C (2) Pass ? >> >>(1) Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >>request. 10-14 hcp, at least two controls >>(A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six >>clubs (could have five clubs with 100 >>honours), almost always single-suited (could >>have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K >>and Q). >> >>(2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, >>instead merely competing for the partscore. Jerry Fusselman asked: >How many clubs, and what distribution, does >3C show? Richard Hills asks: Is the concept "aces are meant to beat kings" included in the Law 75C caveat of "general knowledge and experience"? Likewise, are the concepts "when in doubt, bid one more" and "competing for the partscore" also general knowledge and experience? Surely it is general knowledge and experience that North's "distribution" might be that a doubleton club is North's shortness, since scattered values and a 6-2 club fit is enough to compete to the three level at imps, if one hopes to score +110 in 3C or +100 defending 3S. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 3 04:09:16 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4702F9CC.5060708@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] (d) Mister Hills will summon the Director, who will require, (e) Mister Hills to leave the table, so that (f) Mister Hills' partner can explain to the opponents the implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding without (g) Mister Hills receiving any UI from partner's explanation, and also without (h) Mister Hills' partner receiving any UI from Mister Hills' incorrect (or correct) "guess". What's the problem? [nigel] Many BLMLers agree that the solution described by Richard should become law, because it encourages players to admit to their agreements just to avoid this time-wasting palaver. If he is not too busy, a director will sometimes ask an opponent if he has an agreement. He may even examine opponent's convention card. But I have never heard of a case where a director has insisted that the caller explain his own call after ensuring that his partner is out of earshot. Unfortunately, this protocol does NOT seem to be detailed in the law-book. And unless the law-book explicitly and specifically endorses it, if only as a last resort, I doubt I will ever see it used. This is another area, where established on-line practice is pointing the way ahead for the WBFLC Ed Reppert believes that such discussions are pointless as he believes that no radical law reform will occur for another 10 years. I hope he is wrong and that that there will soon be some simplifications, because I fear that current f2f laws are hastening the demise of the game I enjoy. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 3 04:10:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:10:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott (24th November 2006): >>+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that >>neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's >>explanation that there is a misunderstanding between them. >>Each should continue bidding and explaining his partner's >>calls on the basis of his own understanding (on which he has >>based his earlier calls). Only when the bidding is >>unmistakably unhinged can he learn from that of the problem. >> >>But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an >>instruction or guidance to players that they should explain >>according to system correctly, but continue to call on the >>basis of their own understanding. [snip] Richard Hills (25th November 2006): >In my opinion, Grattan's "uneasy feeling" is indeed how the >Lawbook should be interpreted. > >Law 40E2 footnote: > >"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play >periods, to any aids to his memory ....." Richard Hills (3rd October 2007): Even clearer evidence that one's partnership understandings are _not_ automatically Authorised Information to oneself is the final sentence of the Law 75 footnote: "For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four- card holding in either major suit; but South?s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." 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 Oct 3 04:38:33 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:38:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0710021646h2a16ce50h99746682b0c4906@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710021938j1d5680ffqe451a4bc2dfc1c78@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >How many clubs, and what distribution, does > >3C show? > > Richard Hills asks: > > Is the concept "aces are meant to beat kings" > included in the Law 75C caveat of "general > knowledge and experience"? > > Likewise, are the concepts "when in doubt, bid > one more" and "competing for the partscore" > also general knowledge and experience? > > Surely it is general knowledge and experience > that North's "distribution" might be that a > doubleton club is North's shortness, since > scattered values and a 6-2 club fit is enough > to compete to the three level at imps, if one > hopes to score +110 in 3C or +100 defending 3S. > Anyone else find this a snooty answer? Richard, would you give this kind of answer at the table to someone who might totally unfamiliar with these methods? All right, since you said very little, what would 2NT, 3D, 3H, 4C, double, and pass have shown? How should I know what kinds of hands would not bid 3C if you don't tell me? Actually, it took me a while to see that 3C was intended as natural---it might have been totally artificial, as I imagined was possible at first, if your bidding system over interference was poor. When someone is totally unfamiliar with your methods, do you really want to give a truth-economist answer with a bonus two-paragraph legal preamble? Besides, the methods don't make much sense to me. You don't care about voids and lots of extra clubs when opening 2C? Seems to me that your possible range of strength of the hand is so great (if the statement describing 2C is complete) that there is a possibility that some information has not been disclosed. For example, what would it take for a hand that fits your description of 2C to be too good and therefore be opened 1C? Regards, Jerry Fusselman From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 3 04:59:51 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:59:51 +0900 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710021938j1d5680ffqe451a4bc2dfc1c78@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710021938j1d5680ffqe451a4bc2dfc1c78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200710030259.AA10837@geller204.nifty.com> This shouldn't be a problem. It's just like raising a weak 2 bid to 3, or a precision 2C to 3C, as a purely competitive bid. Everyone knows what that means and isn't this just the same sort of thing? -Bob Jerry Fusselman ????????: >On 10/2/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Jerry Fusselman asked: >> >> >How many clubs, and what distribution, does >> >3C show? >> >> Richard Hills asks: >> >> Is the concept "aces are meant to beat kings" >> included in the Law 75C caveat of "general >> knowledge and experience"? >> >> Likewise, are the concepts "when in doubt, bid >> one more" and "competing for the partscore" >> also general knowledge and experience? >> >> Surely it is general knowledge and experience >> that North's "distribution" might be that a >> doubleton club is North's shortness, since >> scattered values and a 6-2 club fit is enough >> to compete to the three level at imps, if one >> hopes to score +110 in 3C or +100 defending 3S. >> > >Anyone else find this a snooty answer? Richard, would you give this >kind of answer at the table to someone who might totally unfamiliar >with these methods? > >All right, since you said very little, what would 2NT, 3D, 3H, 4C, >double, and pass have shown? How should I know what kinds of hands >would not bid 3C if you don't tell me? Actually, it took me a while >to see that 3C was intended as natural---it might have been totally >artificial, as I imagined was possible at first, if your bidding >system over interference was poor. > >When someone is totally unfamiliar with your methods, do you really >want to give a truth-economist answer with a bonus two-paragraph legal >preamble? > >Besides, the methods don't make much sense to me. You don't care >about voids and lots of extra clubs when opening 2C? Seems to me that >your possible range of strength of the hand is so great (if the >statement describing 2C is complete) that there is a possibility that >some information has not been disclosed. For example, what would it >take for a hand that fits your description of 2C to be too good and >therefore be opened 1C? > >Regards, >Jerry Fusselman > >_______________________________________________ >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 Oct 3 06:21:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:21:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710021938j1d5680ffqe451a4bc2dfc1c78@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Anyone else find this a snooty answer? Richard, >would you give this kind of answer at the table >to someone who might totally unfamiliar with >these methods? Richard Hills: At the table I do indeed give this comprehensive description of partner's 2C opening bid to those opponents who might be totally unfamiliar with these methods: "10-14 hcp, at least two controls (A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six clubs (could have five clubs with 100 honours), almost always single- suited (could have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K and Q)." And also at the table I am careful to pre-alert unfamiliar opponents about our methods at the start of the round or at the start of the match. Jerry Fusselman: >Actually, it took me a while to see that 3C was >intended as natural Richard Hills: Which is why I took particular care to provide a footnote describing 3C as "Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, instead merely competing for the partscore." Jerry Fusselman: . >All right, since you said very little, Richard Hills: I think I am about to have a David Burn moment. In Canberra I am affectionately mocked for giving overly full and frank disclosure of my methods. Indeed, when as declarer before the opening lead I eagerly ask the opponents, "Would you like an explanation of the auction?", some taunt me by saying, "No, I am going to prevent you from having any more pedagogical fun." And now I am being accused that I "said very little"??? Jerry Fusselman: >what would 2NT, 3D, 3H, 4C, double, and pass >have shown? Richard Hills: Okay, one of my pre-alerts is that doubles of overcalls are penalty doubles (except for our opening bids of 1C or 1D, when doubles of overcalls up to and including 4H are negative). 2NT is natural and invitational. 3D is natural and forcing for one round. 3H is natural and forcing for one round. 4C is natural and pre- emptive. Pass is natural and non-forcing. If I still have not said enough, I repeat my offer to email a complete copy of my system notes. ;-) Jerry Fusselman: >When someone is totally unfamiliar with your >methods, do you really want to give a truth- >economist answer Richard Hills: No, I am careful to give comprehensive positive and negative inferences when describing a relay auction to someone totally unfamiliar with my methods. But in this wholly natural auction a natural 2C opening has had a natural 2S overcall followed by a natural 3C raise in a natural and very commonplace ("general knowledge and experience") competitive auction. Brian King, The Lying Ape, page 126: ARMSTRONG: It was a misleading impression. It does not contain a lie, I don't think. TURNBULL: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie? ARMSTRONG: A lie is a straight untruth. TURNBULL: What is a misleading impression - a sort of bent untruth? ARMSTRONG: As one person said, it is perhaps being economical with the truth. ;-) 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 Oct 3 06:30:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:30:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4702F9CC.5060708@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Many BLMLers agree that the solution described by Richard >should become law, [snip] >But I have never heard of a case where a director has insisted >that the caller explain his own call after ensuring that his >partner is out of earshot. Richard Hills: It is a commonplace action by Directors in Aussie tournaments. Nigel Guthrie: >Unfortunately, this protocol does NOT seem to be detailed in >the law-book. [snip] H.H. Asquith (1852-1928): "We had better wait and see." ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 3 09:15:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:15:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47034193.7070208@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> I believe you two are not talking about the same thing. >> >> I think Ed will quickly tell his "guess" when he is >> merely uncertain, and that his refusal to "guess" is >> conditional on him knowing absolutely nothing. > > Richard Hills: > > What does Mister De Wael mean by "merely uncertain"? If > Mister De Wael intends this scenario: > Mister De Wael means with "merely uncertain": "merely uncertain". > (a) Mister Hills and his partner have implicitly (or > explicitly) agreed a partnership understanding, and > > (b) Mister Hills is "merely uncertain" what that > implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding is, due > to a rare failure in the elephantine memory of Mister > Hills, then > > (c) Mister Hills will *not* quickly tell his "guess", > but instead, > > (d) Mister Hills will summon the Director, who will > require, > > (e) Mister Hills to leave the table, so that > > (f) Mister Hills' partner can explain to the opponents > the implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding > without > > (g) Mister Hills receiving any UI from partner's > explanation, and also without > > (h) Mister Hills' partner receiving any UI from Mister > Hills' incorrect (or correct) "guess". > > What's the problem? > > Note that even a correct "guess" provides UI to partner > that the partnership is luckily on the same wavelength. > > Yes, Mister Hills knows that Mister De Wael will now > post a zillion words that the above procedure is > contrary to the De Wael School interpretation of the > 1997 Lawbook, but perhaps those zillion words will be > of limited temporal relevance. > bla bla bla. > ;-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 3 09:22:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:22:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:21:45 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well Brian, the next time you are playing with a partner who makes >> you a bid that's an exact 50/50 guess, be sure to let us know. >> In my opinion, such a situation is totally impossible. >> > > Well it happens regularly online, Herman, but I expect you won't count > that. > > So, the last time I can remember it happening in F2F bridge... > Well, it would probably be one of the times I was the designated host > at the club at which I used to play in England. If you're unfamiliar > with the system, each week a different player is designated as a host, > and if an odd number of players turn up on the night, the host's partner > goes home. > > Playing as the host usually means you get about as long to discuss a > system as you do in online bridge, because you're playing with the > last unpaired player to walk through the door, and you only know it > when the TD starts the movement. > > So, what could it have been? RKC or standard Blackwood? Transfers on or > off over a 1NT overcall that gets doubled, or over a double of opps 1NT? > D0P1 or P0D1? There will have been something... > And I'm sure there is some pecking order which will tell you which it more likely is. Anyway, if it's anything important, he won't use a system that you won't understand, and he'll hope you'll have the pecking order right. And if you happen to guess correctly - why should the TD believe it was just a 50/50 guess and not some 70/30 one? >> Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against >> his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than >> your opponents do. > > OK, I'll bite. Let's take one of my examples above. Explain to me how > playing different contracts somehow helps me decide whether pard plays > transfers on or off when the bidding goes (1S)-1NT (15-18)- (dbl) to > me. You've got my usual collection, S xx H xxxxx D xxx C xxx. > Which are you going to bid, 2D or 2H, and *why*? Since you think the > earlier tables were important, let's say that you're 20 boards into the > session, you know your partner plays transfers over your opening 1NT, > but this is the first time either of you have overcalled 1NT. You want > more information? OK, I would usually retain transfers in that > situation, and pard has played against me enough times to know it, and > pard doesn't usually play transfers in that situation, and I've played > against him enough times to know it. Is he trying to follow my system, > or am I trying to follow his? I await your explanation with interest. > Well, of course you're always going to be able to construct examples where it would be 50/50 - but are you certain you're telling me everything? Since this is a constructed example, you could say you're sure, but in real life? There's probably some joint memory of the both of you of the time you played on the same team, or with the same partner. Or maybe you've been discussing a few other things and have settled on your usual methods, so he's thinking "I'll follow him in this one as well". The point being that if you're going to treat it as one thing, and you happen to guess correctly, you're never going to convince me (as TD) that it was just a 50/50 guess. > > >> That "more" translates in you having a 60/40 >> guess, at least. If you don't tell them which of the two is the 60% >> probability, you are a cheat. If you decide to follow the 40% >> probability one, you are a fool. Since I don't want to call you >> neither a cheat nor a fool, I assume you will tell them which is the >> 60% option. >> > > Herman, you need to review the earlier messages in this thread. The > situation postulated is that you don't know what you're playing, and > the TD forces you to guess. If I know it's 60-40 in favour of one of > the bids, then the TD isn't going to be forcing me to guess. > And in the message just previous to the one I replied to, you did mention that 50/50 (IIRC). >> And if it is truely 50/50, you've earnt yourself a bottle of >> champagne, and your reasoning above would be true. I consider that a >> very infrequent happening, and I (as TD) won't believe it if you tell >> me it is. I'll force you to reveal the 51% option. >> > > And if I honestly believe it to be a total guess, with two > possibilities which I can't split (the only circumstances under which > a TD would be forcing me to guess), then I'll flip a coin, and go with > whatever it "decides". I don't believe you can differentiate between a > 49% and 51% possibility when you're talking about possible meanings, > but do feel free to convince me otherwise - with an ACTUAL example. > > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 2 16:54:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:54:47 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= References: <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47025BB6.00000E.78233@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 02/10/2007 16:21:52 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than your opponents do. That "more" translates in you having a 60/40 guess, at least. If you don't tell them which of the two is the 60% probability, you are a cheat. If you decide to follow the 40% probability one, you are a fool. Since I don't want to call you neither a cheat nor a fool, I assume you will tell them which is the 60% option. AG : wouldn't it be more correct to tell opponents the complete truth, i.e. "I'd say it's more than 50% partner has hand A, but it might also be hand B" ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071002/e94e3d9d/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/20071002/e94e3d9d/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/20071002/e94e3d9d/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 3 10:25:37 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:25:37 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___Rueful_Rabbit____=5BSEC=3DUN?= =?iso-8859-1?q?OFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <47035200.000001.86877@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 02/10/2007 23:43:35 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Imps Dealer South Vulnerable East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 2C (1) 2S 3C (2) Pass ? (2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, instead merely competing for the partscore. You, South, hold: QT8 --- K93 AKT8542 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? AG : I'd bid whatever my system says I should bid to suggest -but not more than suggest- defending ; most probably 3NT or 4C. Pass is an LA if that's the question. If other 3-bids are defined, my vote can go to some of them (shortness-showing ?) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071003/14337261/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/20071003/14337261/attachment-0002.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071003/14337261/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 3 10:25:37 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:25:37 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___Rueful_Rabbit____=5BSEC=3DUN?= =?iso-8859-1?q?OFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <47035200.000001.86877@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 02/10/2007 23:43:35 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Imps Dealer South Vulnerable East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 2C (1) 2S 3C (2) Pass ? (2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, instead merely competing for the partscore. You, South, hold: QT8 --- K93 AKT8542 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? AG : I'd bid whatever my system says I should bid to suggest -but not more than suggest- defending ; most probably 3NT or 4C. Pass is an LA if that's the question. If other 3-bids are defined, my vote can go to some of them (shortness-showing ?) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071003/14337261/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/20071003/14337261/attachment-0003.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071003/14337261/attachment-0003.gif From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 3 12:47:34 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 06:47:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:22:25 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: <...> > > And if you happen to guess correctly - why should the TD believe it > was just a 50/50 guess and not some 70/30 one? > Why should a TD believe anything a player says, in that case? <...> > > The point being that if you're going to treat it as one thing, and > you happen to guess correctly, you're never going to convince me (as > TD) that it was just a 50/50 guess. > Then you need to try to persuade the WBFLC to change the Laws to follow Nigel's view, and to get the NCBOs to follow suit (when I last played in England, the EBU Orange Book very specifically prohibited players from saying how they were going to take an undiscussed bid. That may or may not have changed in later revisions, I don't know). Until that day happens, you (as TD) are expected to rule according to the Laws, and if I say that I am faced with two equally likely alternatives, then you either believe me, or you call me a cheat, but you cannot, of your own volition, say that there is no such thing as a 50/50 guess just because of the (presumably) 50% of times that a player faced with such a guess will get it right. 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/20071003/81006592/attachment.pgp From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 3 13:46:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:46:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47038116.90503@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:22:25 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > > <...> > >> And if you happen to guess correctly - why should the TD believe it >> was just a 50/50 guess and not some 70/30 one? >> > > Why should a TD believe anything a player says, in that case? > > <...> > >> The point being that if you're going to treat it as one thing, and >> you happen to guess correctly, you're never going to convince me (as >> TD) that it was just a 50/50 guess. >> > > Then you need to try to persuade the WBFLC to change the Laws to follow > Nigel's view, and to get the NCBOs to follow suit (when I last played > in England, the EBU Orange Book very specifically prohibited players > from saying how they were going to take an undiscussed bid. That may or > may not have changed in later revisions, I don't know). > But we're not talking about an undiscussed bid. An undiscussed bid is something that does not matter. If I forget to arrange beforehand if we're playing 4-card diamonds or better minor, then "undiscussed" is true, and a full explanation. I don't have to "guess" which one it is, because it does not matter. It's natural, OK. But if my partner bids 3Cl, then I won't, for a moment, accept "undiscussed" as a valid answer, when "undiscussed" means anything other than "undiscussed, so obviously natural and weak" (if that is the default meaning of your club). If the partner turns up with a 5-5 in the majors, I will rule MI. I don't care what the EBU give as advice to players - if, as a TD, I find that two partners are on the same wavelength, and they have answered "undiscussed", then I'm ruling MI. And thus the advice _I_ give to the players is to tell their opponents their educated guesses, and not hide behind "undiscussed". > Until that day happens, you (as TD) are expected to rule according to > the Laws, and if I say that I am faced with two equally likely > alternatives, then you either believe me, or you call me a cheat, but > you cannot, of your own volition, say that there is no such thing as a > 50/50 guess just because of the (presumably) 50% of times that a player > faced with such a guess will get it right. > Well, if you want me to rule according to the laws, do not cite EBU regulations to me, especially if they use wording that you are hiding behind. And I maintain that there is no such thing as a 50/50 guess. You know your partner, he knows you, and he is trying to tell you something. The footnote tells me to rule MI if I find that you could have known more than you were telling. If that means that I rule against you, then so be it. Take my advice and tell them your guess, or don't take my advice and get a MI ruling. My advice does not have the power of Law, but my ruling will be the same regardless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 3 13:48:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:48:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <47025BB6.00000E.78233@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <47025BB6.00000E.78233@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <47038193.9000700@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Herman De Wael > /*Date :*/ 02/10/2007 16:21:52 > /*A :*/ Bridge Laws Mailing List > /*Sujet :*/ Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick > > Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against > his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than > your opponents do. That "more" translates in you having a 60/40 guess, > at least. If you don't tell them which of the two is the 60% > probability, you are a cheat. If you decide to follow the 40% > probability one, you are a fool. Since I don't want to call you > neither a cheat nor a fool, I assume you will tell them which is the > 60% option. > > AG : wouldn't it be more correct to tell opponents the complete truth, i.e. > "I'd say it's more than 50% partner has hand A, but it might also be > hand B" ? > No that would not be more right. Because if the explanations are so different that it matters to them, there is nothing better for them to do than to follow your explanation "A". And if it turns out to be "B", I will rule MI. So telling them "B" additionally merely clouds the matter and does not help you or them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 3 13:55:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:55:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick__sheik?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=27_s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <47038193.9000700@skynet.be> References: <47025BB6.00000E.78233@CERAP-MATSH1> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <47025BB6.00000E.78233@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071003135219.02821390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:48 3/10/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >No that would not be more right. Because if the explanations are so >different that it matters to them, there is nothing better for them to >do than to follow your explanation "A". AG : IBTD. Assume screens. In some partnerships, if they tell me "I don't know whether the double of your 1NT shows a minor and a major, or whether it shows a one-suiter", I know that, in both cases, we play "system on" (we don't over penalty doubles). And I know partner (who is assumed to have got the right answer) will play same. Whence less disruption and less risk of needing a TD's intervention. Best regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 3 15:16:06 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:16:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47039616.7030706@ntlworld.com> [Brian Meadows] Why should a TD believe anything a player says, in that case? [Nige1] Even were the law less subjective, the director would still have to rely on player's statements, to some extent, but I agree with Brian, that current law is over-reliant. For example, current disclosure law, as normally implemented, encourages and rewards plausible liars rationalisers and truth economists. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 3 15:58:36 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:58:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <47039616.7030706@ntlworld.com> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> <47039616.7030706@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20071003095836.2be6697b@linuxbox> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:16:06 +0100 Guthrie wrote: > [Brian Meadows] > Why should a TD believe anything a player says, in that case? > > [Nige1] > Even were the law less subjective, the director would still have to > rely on player's statements, to some extent, but I agree with Brian, > that current law is over-reliant. For example, current disclosure > law, as normally implemented, encourages and rewards plausible liars > rationalisers and truth economists. > And I do *NOT* agree with Nigel, even though he thinks I do. My question was a rhetorical one, in response to Herman's post. Nigel removed the context (Herman's statement), thereby totally changing the meaning. It's my opinion that a TD *should* assume that a player is basically truthful *absent* good reason to think otherwise. I don't know where you play your bridge these days, Nigel, but you must have some right bandits in the club. I certainly don't recognise Reading BC in what you say, unless it's changed beyond all recognition since I lived in Reading. 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/20071003/d25e1d7b/attachment.pgp From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 3 23:50:20 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:50:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > And I'm sure there is some pecking order which will tell you which it > more likely is. > Herman, I wonder where you are playing. Maybe I should play there too, but it sounds too much like paradise. I do not want to comment on dWs vs. whatever, but I assure you that there are many situations where it is 50/50, and you are glad it is not 33/33/33. I grant you that "no idea" is often abused, but you should realize that it happens, and more often than you think. > Anyway, if it's anything important, he won't use a system that you > won't understand, Get real. Of course any responsible partner will act as you describe, but the vast majority of potential partners do not fall in that category. They will bid away with abandon, because everything is clear to them, so it is clear to everybody else, isn`t it? Most players have no idea how to bid at all, so you (and any sensible player) cultivates those partners who do. That does not make the others vanish, and from time to time you meet them, or you meet a sensible players who decides that a nebulous bid gives him the best chance to land in the right contract. There are more 50/50ies than you think, and there are more 60/40ies than others believe. > and he'll hope you'll have the pecking order right. > > And if you happen to guess correctly - why should the TD believe it > was just a 50/50 guess and not some 70/30 one? > > >>> Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against >>> his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than >>> your opponents do. >>> Sorry, no. From time to time I have to help out until a certain player closes shop and reaches the club. I can you assure you that the players I play against have a better idea what my "partner" does than I have. Oh, I am learning, no doubt about that, but there is much uncharted territory to cover. Some situations are better than 50/50, others are worse. Cue-bid: Showing a stop, asking for a stop, showing a fit? No idea. ask me after the hand.... My opps could probably tell me, they are used to "systems" like that, but they know I am groping in the dark, and they like to see someone guess wrong. What is better, they expect me to tell them if I have any inkling of what is going on (by alerting), so they even know whether I am on the right track or not. I do not usually play with players of the class in question, nor do I play against them, so my learning curve is not what I would call steep.... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 4 00:06:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:06:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47038116.90503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Take my advice and tell them your guess, or don't take >my advice and get a MI ruling. My advice does not have >the power of Law, but my ruling will be the same >regardless. Richard Hills: I have noticed some typographical errors in the above statements by Mister De Wael. So, for the benefit of newbies to blml who may be unaware that Mister De Wael frequently has typographical errors in his postings to blml, corrected versions of those two sentences appear below. "Take my unlawful advice and tell them your guess, or don't take my unlawful advice and get an incorrect MI ruling. My advice is directly contrary to Law, but my incompetent ruling will be the same regardless." ;-) 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 Oct 4 02:05:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:05:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rueful Rabbit [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dealer South Vulnerable East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 2C (1) 2S 3C (2) Pass ? (1) Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request. 10-14 hcp, at least two controls (A = 2, K = 1), almost always at least six clubs (could have five clubs with 100 honours), almost always single-suited (could have four rotten diamonds lacking the A, K and Q). (2) Not a yarborough, but not inviting game, instead merely competing for the partscore. You, South, hold: QT8 --- K93 AKT8542 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * Those blmlers who responded to the poll were unanimous in suggesting that Pass was a "logical alternative". This again highlights the difference between "logical alternative" and logical alternative, since it is totally illogical to pass 3C at imps scoring, when a 45% chance of success makes a non-vul game worth bidding. For example, if partner is competing for the partscore with this boring flat hand: J32 QJT A32 9763 then 3NT is 100% cold (and 5C could fail on the plausible defence of ace and king of spades, then a spade ruff). So at the table I did choose the "illogical alternative" of 3NT. Under the EBU "Red Psyche" regulation my non-Pass would be deemed to be "illegal fielding", since pard had psyched his non-forcing non-invitational 3C bid with: A7 982 AQT652 QJ (Actually partner had recently had cataracts removed from both eyes, so partner simply did not see all of his high cards.) Astute observers will note that opposite partner's actual cards 7C or 7D is a pretty good contract. But naturally enough partner passed 3NT. The complete deal: A7 982 AQT652 QJ KJ9532 64 QJT764 AK53 4 J87 --- 9763 QT8 --- K93 AKT8542 If West had chosen to lead from their spade suit against 3NT something would have been salvaged from the wreckage, but West unluckily chose to make the only logical lead of the queen of hearts instead. -100 in 3NT for a complete and utter debacle. But at the other table team-mates managed to steal the contract in 4S, which made when North-South failed to find the double-dummy defence of two heart ruffs. +620 to the good guys, so a Rueful Rabbit complete and utter debacle which gained 11 imps. ;-) 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 Oct 4 04:21:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:21:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071003095836.2be6697b@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] >It's my opinion that a TD *should* assume that a player is >basically truthful *absent* good reason to think otherwise. [snip] Richard Hills: Acolytes of the De Wael School like citing this phrase of the Law 75 footnote: "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of written evidence to the contrary" However, it seems to me that there may be a misprint in the De Wael School's copy of the Lawbook, since my copy of the Lawbook lacks the adjective "written". As Brian has noted, verbal evidence from players is quite often basically truthful. Law 85A: "When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he shall proceed as follows: If the Director is satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84." Richard Hills: The World Bridge Federation might soon officially rule that the Law 85A word "satisfied" should not be interpreted as "the Director is satisfied that his ruling is in accordance with his personal De Wael School philosophy" but rather should be interpreted as "the Director is satisfied that his ruling is based on the balance of probabilities". If the World Bridge Federation does decide to issue such a clarifying ruling (which is what many sensible Directors have been doing for decades anyway), then, in my opinion, a Director who is a De Wael School acolyte should have to choose between: (a) continuing to be an acolyte of the De Wael School, or (b) continuing to be a licensed Director. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 4 08:59:21 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:59:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <20071003095836.2be6697b@linuxbox> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <20071003064734.7ef76f4c@linuxbox> <47039616.7030706@ntlworld.com> <20071003095836.2be6697b@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47048F49.3020708@ntlworld.com> [Brian Meadows] And I do *NOT* agree with Nigel, even though he thinks I do. My question was a rhetorical one, in response to Herman's post. Nigel removed the context (Herman's statement), thereby totally changing the meaning. It's my opinion that a TD *should* assume that a player is basically truthful *absent* good reason to think otherwise. I don't know where you play your bridge these days, Nigel, but you must have some right bandits in the club. I certainly don't recognise Reading BC in what you say, unless it's changed beyond all recognition since I lived in Reading. [Nige1] I've been a member of Reading Bridge Club for more than 15 years. We have a high standard of play and ethics. In most National events, however, I suspect some opponents of prevarication about their bidding methods but it's hard to be sure. For example, I overheard an international pair talking about an auction against me. It became obvious that they share an understanding about a particular bid although they claimed no agreement at the table. I interrupted to ask why they did not tell me what it meant. They laughed "We have no agreement -- it is general bridge knowledge and experience". It was like the auction with a "fit-non-jump" and "forcing pass" recently discussed on BLML. (It turned out that one bid was a cunning psych but that is not the point here). What worries me is that so many BLMLers seem to regard both these bids as completely standard and unremarkable -- not even requiring an alert! I have better hard evidence about carding methods. At National congresses, the carding box on the CC of some opponents is incomplete and when asked about a card, a defender tells me that it has no significance. After the hand, the defensive post-mortem makes it clear that it is a signal with an agreed meaning. The last time this happened, I politely suggested that opponents update their CC. When they refused, I immediately called the director, who told opponents to correct their CC but imposed no other sanction. Opponents were angry and abusive. The impression I got was that, in their bridge-circle, truth economy was the norm, and it was considered bad form to enquire about carding. As far as I know, opponents didn't alter their CC. At a local club (NOT Reading) my partner warned me not to complain about such incidents, but after several, I ignored his advice and called the director. The director reluctantly redressed the latest damage but took me aside afterwards and asked me not to call him again in case it caused bad feeling. Victor Mollo regarded the Bridge table is a microcosm of society at large. I agree that there is the same rationalisation and prevarication at the Bridge table as away from it. Much goes undetected and unproven. Bridge law should recognise this fact and not go out of its way to reward and encourage infraction. For instance, it would be great if TFLB did state explicitly that, as a last resort, you could ask a player to explain his own call or play, with his partner out of earshot. If that were law, it would rarely need to be invoked, because players would then prefer the alternative of divulging the meaning of their partner's actions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 4 09:16:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:16:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting, ethics and the American Way [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: New Orleans 1995, ACBL Appeals Casebook, page 49: Granovetter: I agreed with the Committee. The problem here, however, was too many Alerts. There should be no Alerts after the 3NT level. This is common practice in many areas outside of the US. (Editor: I had the opportunity to observe many of these players from outside of the US at the World Championships in Albuquerque. It was clear to me that with all our problems here, we are light years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to ethics. Perhaps the rest of the world should be learning from us in this regard.) 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 Oct 4 09:47:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs East dealer Both vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1H 2D 3H(1) Pass Pass Pass(2) ? (1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation alert regulation required other meanings for 3H to be alerted. (2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the Director before the opening lead to advise that 3H should have been alerted, since the North- South partnership understanding was that 3H showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law 21B1, the Director permitted West to retract their Pass and substitute another call. You, West, hold: Q852 T4 AKQ864 A What call do you substitute? What other calls do you consider substituting? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:05:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:05:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071004095806.028267d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 4/10/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >East dealer >Both vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- Pass 1H >2D 3H(1) Pass Pass >Pass(2) >? > >(1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a >limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation >alert regulation required other meanings for 3H >to be alerted. > >(2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the >Director before the opening lead to advise that >3H should have been alerted, since the North- >South partnership understanding was that 3H >showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law >21B1, the Director permitted West to retract >their Pass and substitute another call. > >You, West, hold: > >Q852 >T4 >AKQ864 >A > >What call do you substitute? AG : 3S. This bid is a reasonable possibility even if 3H is a limit raise. Here, it becomes necessary. Note that, since they know what they're doing, they might still hold a majority (17+5 in lieu of 13+9 or whatever), BTA they might not. But the problem arose before : partner could have had his word to say over 3H, and wasn't given the chance. So it's quite possible that an adjusted score be given even so. >What other calls do you consider substituting? No real second choice, sorry. But I'm sure some would consider passing on the grounds that if they have a contract, they could always try and get an adjusted score as said hereabove. Did partner do something that implied he would have bid had he known about 3H, thereby giving out UI ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 4 10:05:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:05:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071004095806.028267d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:47 4/10/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >East dealer >Both vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- Pass 1H >2D 3H(1) Pass Pass >Pass(2) >? > >(1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a >limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation >alert regulation required other meanings for 3H >to be alerted. > >(2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the >Director before the opening lead to advise that >3H should have been alerted, since the North- >South partnership understanding was that 3H >showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law >21B1, the Director permitted West to retract >their Pass and substitute another call. > >You, West, hold: > >Q852 >T4 >AKQ864 >A > >What call do you substitute? AG : 3S. This bid is a reasonable possibility even if 3H is a limit raise. Here, it becomes necessary. Note that, since they know what they're doing, they might still hold a majority (17+5 in lieu of 13+9 or whatever), BTA they might not. But the problem arose before : partner could have had his word to say over 3H, and wasn't given the chance. So it's quite possible that an adjusted score be given even so. >What other calls do you consider substituting? No real second choice, sorry. But I'm sure some would consider passing on the grounds that if they have a contract, they could always try and get an adjusted score as said hereabove. Did partner do something that implied he would have bid had he known about 3H, thereby giving out UI ? Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 11:30:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:30:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> Take my advice and tell them your guess, or don't take >> my advice and get a MI ruling. My advice does not have >> the power of Law, but my ruling will be the same >> regardless. > > Richard Hills: > > I have noticed some typographical errors in the above > statements by Mister De Wael. So, for the benefit of > newbies to blml who may be unaware that Mister De Wael > frequently has typographical errors in his postings to > blml, corrected versions of those two sentences appear > below. > > "Take my unlawful advice and tell them your guess, or > don't take my unlawful advice and get an incorrect MI > ruling. My advice is directly contrary to Law, but my > incompetent ruling will be the same regardless." > > ;-) OK, that was the last straw. Apologize or face the consequences. Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. Words like these should not be tolerated. There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is totally inapropriate. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 11:46:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:46:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4704B670.1060007@skynet.be> Hallo Matthias, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> And I'm sure there is some pecking order which will tell you which it >> more likely is. >> > > Herman, I wonder where you are playing. Maybe I should play there too, > but it sounds too much like paradise. > I do not want to comment on dWs vs. whatever, but I assure you that > there are many situations where it is 50/50, and you are glad it is not > 33/33/33. I grant you that "no idea" is often abused, but you should > realize that it happens, and more often than you think. > I cannot imagine it does, but let's read on: >> Anyway, if it's anything important, he won't use a system that you >> won't understand, > > Get real. Of course any responsible partner will act as you describe, > but the vast majority of potential partners do not fall in that > category. They will bid away with abandon, because everything is clear > to them, so it is clear to everybody else, isn`t it? Of course it is. And in those cases, it will be clear to you as well. Most often, if a player is so deluded as to think there is only one possible meaning for a bid, then that meaning is also known to his partner, even if that player is well aware that alternatives are possible. Of course there are times when you play with such a total stranger that even that one meaning is unknown to you, but are we really talking about those cases? > Most players have > no idea how to bid at all, so you (and any sensible player) cultivates > those partners who do. That does not make the others vanish, and from > time to time you meet them, or you meet a sensible players who decides > that a nebulous bid gives him the best chance to land in the right contract. > > There are more 50/50ies than you think, and there are more 60/40ies than > others believe. > Thank you for that semi-support. >> and he'll hope you'll have the pecking order right. >> >> And if you happen to guess correctly - why should the TD believe it >> was just a 50/50 guess and not some 70/30 one? >> >> >>>> Except for the very first table you play with him, and except against >>>> his regular partner's, you know more about your partner's system than >>>> your opponents do. >>>> > Sorry, no. From time to time I have to help out until a certain player > closes shop and reaches the club. I can you assure you that the players > I play against have a better idea what my "partner" does than I have. > Oh, I am learning, no doubt about that, but there is much uncharted > territory to cover. Some situations are better than 50/50, others are > worse. Cue-bid: Showing a stop, asking for a stop, showing a fit? No > idea. ask me after the hand.... My opps could probably tell me, they are > used to "systems" like that, but they know I am groping in the dark, > and they like to see someone guess wrong. What is better, they expect me > to tell them if I have any inkling of what is going on (by alerting), so > they even know whether I am on the right track or not. I do not usually > play with players of the class in question, nor do I play against them, > so my learning curve is not what I would call steep.... > Matthias, you are talking about the category of cases I call exceptions. Of course those exist. I alluded to them myself when I said "in the very first board you play". But I don't believe this is the category of cases that we are talking about. When Nigel says the TD should be able to force a player to guess, he is not talking about the player who is genuinely unaware, but to the one who needs a "guess" to determine what his partner is trying to tell him. Such a "guess" is based on much more than mere guesswork, and that much more needs to be divulged. And it boils down to telling them the guess. So I really think this whole discussion is about what constitutes a guess. Real guesses need not be disclosed, since there is nothing to disclose. But quite frequently, what players call guesses are educated guesses, and those need to be told (or at least the education needs to be given, which I believe turns out to be the same thing). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 4 13:07:27 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 07:07:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:30:56 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. Mailing lists aren't a democracy, Herman. Only one person's opinion counts as to whether or not someone should be unhooked from BLML, and that person is Henk. Make your case to him, or learn how to use a kill-file and dump Richard in it, or unsubscribe. The choice is yours. 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/20071004/9fd2a7c8/attachment.pgp From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 13:49:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:49:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:30:56 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. > > Mailing lists aren't a democracy, Herman. Only one person's opinion > counts as to whether or not someone should be unhooked from BLML, and > that person is Henk. Make your case to him, or learn how to use a > kill-file and dump Richard in it, or unsubscribe. The choice is yours. > > > Brian. > I know how this works, Brian, and rather than tell me off for using the word expelled, you could be joining me or not in condemming the piece itself. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 4 14:18:26 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:18:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071004081826.57b12e68@linuxbox> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:49:04 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > > I know how this works, Brian, and rather than tell me off for using > the word expelled, you could be joining me or not in condemming the > piece itself. > OK. I'm much closer to Richard's point of view than yours. Is that what you wanted? 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/20071004/0063dda1/attachment.pgp From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 15:08:42 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:08:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> > OK, that was the last straw. > Apologize or face the consequences. > Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. > Words like these should not be tolerated. > There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is totally inapropriate. Comment 1: A number of people on this list - myself included ? would argue that the Laws need to be applied in a consistent manner. I don't give a rat's ass whether the De Wael School holds true or, alternatively whether the more conventional interpretation should take precedence. However, as a player I consider any situation where one set of Directors will rule X and a second group of Directors will rule Y deeply problematic. (It's even worse when their rulings require that I adopt different behavioral codes) I will repeat: I view this type of schism in the enforcement structure to be much more significant that the legal technicalities that are being argued. I don't care what I am supposed to do, as long as I can reasonable understand what this is. Comment 2: You (Herman) seem to take a very different view. Your primary concern seems to be that your technical position prevails. You are (obviously) willing to fork the regulatory system in order to achieve this end. There is a very simple way to resolve this impasse. Agree to use the traditional interpretation to render judgments in the present while working within the system to ensure that the DWS is adopted in future revisions of the Law. At the very least, contact the WBF for official guidance and agree to abide by their recommendation. I doubt that anyone here would have any problem with course of action. Unfortunately, what I see is an egotistical and petty little child who is more concerned with getting his own way than serving his customers. As I have mentioned in the past, I see some very disturbing parallels between your behavior regarding the DSW and the Herman 1H opening. In both case, it is clear that there is a great deal of dispute regarding the propriety of your interpretation. In both cases, you refuse to ask for guidance through the appropriate channels. It is this behavior that people like Richard and myself find so objectionable. Tournament Directors are supposed to work within the system. If they fail to do so, they should be removed for cause. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 4 15:09:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:09:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >> And I'm sure there is some pecking order which will tell you which it >> more likely is. > > Herman, I wonder where you are playing. Maybe I should play there too, > but it sounds too much like paradise. > I do not want to comment on dWs vs. whatever, but I assure you that > there are many situations where it is 50/50, and you are glad it is > not > 33/33/33. I grant you that "no idea" is often abused, but you should > realize that it happens, and more often than you think. Herman is right that "there is some pecking order", but it doesn't "tell you" anything. Probabilities are continuous, so Herman is quite right when he says that the chance that any given situation is *exactly* 50/50 is vanishingly small. But the human brain isn't a computer. It is beyond the ability of mere humans, at the table without any "aids to... calculation", to distinguish "exactly 50/50" from 50.1/49.9 or 51/49 or even 55/45. Or, for that matter, to distinguish 70/30 from 80/20. The mere human at the table will react in one of three ways: (1) I am confident it is A; (2) I think it is A but it might be B; (3) It could be either A or B, I haven't a clue. It's all well and good to go on in theory about 51/49 positions, but in real life this is what we have to work with. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 4 15:45:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:45:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > East dealer > Both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 1H > 2D 3H(1) Pass Pass > Pass(2) > ? > > (1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a > limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation > alert regulation required other meanings for 3H > to be alerted. > > (2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the > Director before the opening lead to advise that > 3H should have been alerted, since the North- > South partnership understanding was that 3H > showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law > 21B1, the Director permitted West to retract > their Pass and substitute another call. > > You, West, hold: > > Q852 > T4 > AKQ864 > A > > What call do you substitute? Double. > What other calls do you consider substituting? 3S. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 4 15:52:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:52:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: <4704B670.1060007@skynet.be> References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> <4704B670.1060007@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > When Nigel says the TD should be able to force a player to guess, he > is not talking about the player who is genuinely unaware, but to the > one who needs a "guess" to determine what his partner is trying to > tell him. Such a "guess" is based on much more than mere guesswork, > and that much more needs to be divulged. And it boils down to telling > them the guess. Herman is exactly right here! When "such a 'guess' is based on much more than mere guesswork... *that much more* [empahsis mine] needs to be divulged. But while that may well "boil[] down to telling them the guess" in nearly every case, the laws *require* you to divulge "the much more" while *forbidding* you from divulging "the guess". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 15:55:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:55:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071004081826.57b12e68@linuxbox> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> <20071004081826.57b12e68@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4704F0B5.1020403@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:49:04 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I know how this works, Brian, and rather than tell me off for using >> the word expelled, you could be joining me or not in condemming the >> piece itself. >> > > OK. I'm much closer to Richard's point of view than yours. Is that what > you wanted? > No it's not. I don't mind Richard, you, or anyone disagreeing with me. What I do object to is Richard calling my actions illegal and unlawful thrice in one sentence, and for him doing so without any comment on what I actually said. It is the so so manyth ad hominem attack of his, and I am fed up with it. If he cannot find any arguments, then please ask him to stop commenting. How can an advice be illegal - I can advice whatever I want, can't I? People can follow my advice or not, can they not? And their actions will be judged illegal or not - but my advice cannot be illegal. As to my ruling, that is per definition legal, since it will be given by a qualified director. The ruling may be changed by an AC, but that does not make the ruling illegal. Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 15:57:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:57:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4704F139.7070907@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> OK, that was the last straw. >> Apologize or face the consequences. >> Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. >> Words like these should not be tolerated. >> There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is totally inapropriate. > > Comment 1: A number of people on this list - myself included ? would > argue that the Laws need to be applied in a consistent manner. I > don't give a rat's ass whether the De Wael School holds true or, > alternatively whether the more conventional interpretation should take > precedence. However, as a player I consider any situation where one > set of Directors will rule X and a second group of Directors will rule > Y deeply problematic. (It's even worse when their rulings require > that I adopt different behavioral codes) > There was nothing in the post that Richard alluded to that has any bearing on whatever discussion you are trying to make this about. Richard used words which were unkind and hurtful. That is what I was reacting to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 15:58:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:58:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4704F18B.9060000@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> OK, that was the last straw. >> Apologize or face the consequences. >> Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this poster expelled. >> Words like these should not be tolerated. >> There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is totally inapropriate. > > Comment 1: A number of people on this list - myself included ? would > argue that the Laws need to be applied in a consistent manner. I > don't give a rat's ass whether the De Wael School holds true or, > alternatively whether the more conventional interpretation should take > precedence. However, as a player I consider any situation where one > set of Directors will rule X and a second group of Directors will rule > Y deeply problematic. (It's even worse when their rulings require > that I adopt different behavioral codes) > addendum: Richard's words were hurtful - and Personal. Richard did not see fit to comment on Nigel's post, but when I defended Nigel, Richard jumped on me with far too many adjectives. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 16:15:28 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704F139.7070907@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4704F139.7070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710040715l7c3cfd75r948b18b6671533c8@mail.gmail.com> > There was nothing in the post that Richard alluded to that has any > bearing on whatever discussion you are trying to make this about. > Richard used words which were unkind and hurtful. > > That is what I was reacting to. Herman: You have been parading the DWS and the Herman 1H opening arround this mailing list for years. I don't find it surprising that some folks are starting to get sick and tired of the bullshit and are reacting more forcefully. >From my perspective, I wish that you would chose one of three actions 1. Ask for guidance from above 2. Drop the topic 3. Exit the list I have a strong preference that you chose option 1 I don't have any real problem with 2 I can live with choice 3 For what its worth, your current behaviour is truly pathetic. Its fine to go running arround shouting "Look at me, Look at me, I'm so special", but don't get surprised if folks call you a twit. (And if they do call you a twit or say something "hurtful", you might want spend some serious time reflecting the extent to which your own behaviour is to blame) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 4 16:11:12 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:11:12 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4704F47D.000007.88349@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard willey Date : 04/10/2007 15:09:09 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Comment 1: A number of people on this list - myself included ? would argue that the Laws need to be applied in a consistent manner. I don't give a rat's ass whether the De Wael School holds true or, alternatively whether the more conventional interpretation should take precedence. However, as a player I consider any situation where one set of Directors will rule X and a second group of Directors will rule Y deeply problematic. (It's even worse when their rulings require that I adopt different behavioral codes) AG : allow a moderate DWist to interject a word here. What Herman keeps saying us is that, according to the present set of laws, the situation after MI is exactly of the kind you tell us you abhor (and rightly so !). Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, it means that TDs (or ACs) might well disagree (and agree to disagree) about what the right course would have been, if any, with the ill effects you mention. Some, taking the book litterally, might even hold both actions are wrong. In such a case, it should be obvious that none of the two actions is illicit per se. That's what the law in general says. Nobody can be considered at fault for trying to avoid some offence, even if it creates some other offence of comparable proportions. Isn't that obvious ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071004/d70857a4/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/20071004/d70857a4/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071004/d70857a4/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 16:25:53 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:25:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000c01c80692$78e8be50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard willey ............................ > It is this behavior that people like Richard and myself find so > objectionable. Tournament Directors are supposed to work within the > system. > > If they fail to do so, they should be removed for cause. You are not alone in your opinion! Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 16:36:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:36:28 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: Q65432 104 973 J42 J97 K8 K872 AJ963 654 KJ82 865 73 A10 QJ AQ10 AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 16:45:50 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:45:50 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 Message-ID: > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass 1H > 2D 3H(1) Pass Pass > Pass(2) > ? > > (1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a > limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation > alert regulation required other meanings for 3H > to be alerted. > > (2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the > Director before the opening lead to advise that > 3H should have been alerted, since the North- > South partnership understanding was that 3H > showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law > 21B1, the Director permitted West to retract > their Pass and substitute another call. > > You, West, hold: > > Q852 > T4 > AKQ864 > A > > What call do you substitute? I would double, and I would presume that to bid 3S, exploiting the fact that partner would now know that I would have passed over a limit 3H, and therefore must have a marginal 3S bid, is not active ethics. I would have doubled even if 3H was limit. You can then pull 4C to 4D and will have suggested this hand. Paul From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 16:47:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:47:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4704F47D.000007.88349@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <001201c80695$789d07f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: Whenever both possible reactions (here,?knowingly?creating MI or knowingly?creating UI)?are?badly wrong according to the book, My comment is plainly: I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? According to my understanding of the laws it is the use of UI and not the creation of UI that is violation of laws. Consequently (unless you can point me to a law that says otherwise) the solution is crystal clear: "Thou shalt avoid giving MI to opponents even if the result is creating UI to your partner". Sven From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 16:48:03 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:48:03 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: The tabbing did not work last time, so I am trying again: Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: Q65432 104 973 J42 J97 K8 K872 AJ963 654 KJ82 865 73 A10 QJ AQ10 AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 16:50:58 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:50:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: The tabbing did not work last time, so I am trying for a third time!: Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: .................Q65432 .................104 .................973 .................J42 J97 K8 K872 AJ963 654 KJ82 865 73 .................A10 .................QJ .................AQ10 .................AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" Paul Lamford _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 16:52:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:52:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710040715l7c3cfd75r948b18b6671533c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4704F139.7070907@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040715l7c3cfd75r948b18b6671533c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4704FE1A.3090809@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> There was nothing in the post that Richard alluded to that has any >> bearing on whatever discussion you are trying to make this about. >> Richard used words which were unkind and hurtful. >> >> That is what I was reacting to. > > Herman: You have been parading the DWS and the Herman 1H opening > arround this mailing list for years. I don't find it surprising that > some folks are starting to get sick and tired of the bullshit and are > reacting more forcefully. > Indeed I have, and that is no reason to start behaving impolitely - at best, ignoring would do me fine. >>From my perspective, I wish that you would chose one of three actions > > 1. Ask for guidance from above Such as a two-hour long conversation with Grattan Endicott, numerous meetings with Ton Kooijman, and over a hundred sessions of the EBL AC? I actually consider myself "above". > 2. Drop the topic Why should I? Others keep returning to it? > 3. Exit the list > Why? > I have a strong preference that you chose option 1 > I don't have any real problem with 2 > I can live with choice 3 > > For what its worth, your current behaviour is truly pathetic. > Another personal insult - why not? > Its fine to go running arround shouting "Look at me, Look at me, I'm > so special", but don't get surprised if folks call you a twit. (And > if they do call you a twit or say something "hurtful", you might want > spend some serious time reflecting the extent to which your own > behaviour is to blame) > I did nothing to warrant the personal attack from Richard this morning. I was not even spouting my own views, but agreeing with Nigel. If that warrants attacks like Richard's, then maybe it IS time I left this list and let it fester. BLML does not have a good reputation, and that is not my fault. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 17:10:48 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:10:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704F0B5.1020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c80698$bf13a330$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ...................... > How can an advice be illegal - I can advice whatever I want, can't I? > People can follow my advice or not, can they not? And their actions > will be judged illegal or not - but my advice cannot be illegal. As to > my ruling, that is per definition legal, since it will be given by a > qualified director. The ruling may be changed by an AC, but that does > not make the ruling illegal. If you as a Director gives an advice for an action that is in conflict with the laws then you violate Law 81B2. The consequence of such an advice is that a player acting according to it cannot be penalized for his possible infraction of the laws nor can he be subject to an adverse score adjustment. Instead his consequential infraction must be resolved under Law 82C "considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose". I think you should accept that an advice from a Director very well can be illegal, and refrain from starting another discussion on that question. > Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting? On the contrary I shall join him if the cause is that you give advices conflicting with the laws. Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 17:11:20 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:11:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704FE1A.3090809@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040608p3754503amefdf07fdf9188a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4704F139.7070907@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0710040715l7c3cfd75r948b18b6671533c8@mail.gmail.com> <4704FE1A.3090809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710040811x59c65f08p1eafa1dd6393c425@mail.gmail.com> > > 1. Ask for guidance from above > > Such as a two-hour long conversation with Grattan Endicott, numerous > meetings with Ton Kooijman, and over a hundred sessions of the EBL AC? > I actually consider myself "above". I could be wrong, but as I recall, Grattan indicated that he disagreed with your interpretation. I don't think that he has the authority to revoke your license as a TD, nor do I think that he would wish to. However, I will repeat my primary concern: As a player, I don't want to face a situation in which different TDs expect very different sets of behaviour from competitors. I recognize that little in life is perfect. Shit happens. Different directors will reach different rulings. However, you are going out of your way to fork the regulatory environment and I consider this highly problematic. Moreover, you do promote your minority interpretation on this list. I don't mean to speak for Richard Hills, but I suspect that some of his frustration is a direct consequence of the fact that its necessary to continually post warnings to novice list members about the DWS. It gets old after a while. From dkent at sujja.com Thu Oct 4 17:25:38 2007 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:25:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00e201c8069a$d1e78380$6d02a8c0@DKLaptop> Is there supposed to be two HJ and no H5? -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:51 AM To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: Re: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? The tabbing did not work last time, so I am trying for a third time!: Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: .................Q65432 .................104 .................973 .................J42 J97 K8 K872 AJ963 654 KJ82 865 73 .................A10 .................QJ .................AQ10 .................AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" Paul Lamford _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 4 17:32:43 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:32:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:25:38 EDT." <00e201c8069a$d1e78380$6d02a8c0@DKLaptop> Message-ID: <200710041516.IAA01547@mailhub.irvine.com> David Kent wrote: > Is there supposed to be two HJ and no H5? Interesting that you'd object to that, but not to the fact that North has 14 cards and South has 12. (That wasn't the issue with the real hand, was it?) -- Adam > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:51 AM > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? > > The tabbing did not work last time, so I am trying for a third time!: > > Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: > > .................Q65432 > .................104 > .................973 > .................J42 > J97 K8 > K872 AJ963 > 654 KJ82 > 865 73 > .................A10 > .................QJ > .................AQ10 > .................AKQ109 > > Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams > West North East South > Pass Pass 2H! 3H! > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass(H) > > 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and > 3NT > said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and > > think > the > bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of > hearts, and > > switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The > > question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" > > Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 17:50:16 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:50:16 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: Another try! Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: ...............Q65432 ...............104 ...............97 ...............J42 J97 K8 K872 A9653 654 KJ82 865 73 ...............A10 ...............QJ ...............AQ103 ...............AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" And, no there were 13 cards in each hand, despite my incompetence. Paul Lamford From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 4 18:10:11 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:10:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704F0B5.1020403@skynet.be> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> <20071004081826.57b12e68@linuxbox> <4704F0B5.1020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071004121011.1bebed16@linuxbox> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:55:01 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > How can an advice be illegal - I can advice whatever I want, can't I? I think "illegal" in this instance is shorthand for "is contrary to the laws of bridge". > People can follow my advice or not, can they not? And their actions > will be judged illegal or not - but my advice cannot be illegal. OK, let's try an extreme example. Let's say that I suggested to someone that they should help their partner select a lead by orienting their pen or pencil in a particular direction. Would you say that this advice was illegal, or would you say that giving the advice was legal, but following it was illegal? I would suggest to you that the majority of people on this list would go with the first option, and describe the advice itself as illegal. You can argue that it would be technically incorrect, and you might well have a case, but everybody would understand what was meant. > As > to my ruling, that is per definition legal, since it will be given by > a qualified director. The ruling may be changed by an AC, but that > does not make the ruling illegal. Well, I'll drop the extreme example here. Hasn't it been clearly decided that a "Reveley ruling" is illegal, even if it's given by a qualified director? Same shorthand as above... > Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting? > Maybe it's because they take the same view of what Richard means as I do - that Richard thinks your advice and your ruling would be in conflict with the laws of bridge as they should be interpreted - and that everyone else agrees with Richard. 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/20071004/b50622f4/attachment.pgp From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 19:05:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:05:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001301c80698$bf13a330$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c80698$bf13a330$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47051D46.9080108@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ...................... > >> Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting? > > On the contrary I shall join him if the cause is that you give advices > conflicting with the laws. > How can this advice be contrary to the laws? What is wrong with telling _more_ than what you guys believe a player should? > Sven > Sven, another not known for restraint in what he calls me. I should expect no help there. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 19:05:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:05:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071004121011.1bebed16@linuxbox> References: <4704B2D0.2030500@skynet.be> <20071004070727.0950b874@linuxbox> <4704D330.6090704@skynet.be> <20071004081826.57b12e68@linuxbox> <4704F0B5.1020403@skynet.be> <20071004121011.1bebed16@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47051D69.1060206@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:55:01 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> How can an advice be illegal - I can advice whatever I want, can't I? > > I think "illegal" in this instance is shorthand for "is contrary to the > laws of bridge". > >> People can follow my advice or not, can they not? And their actions >> will be judged illegal or not - but my advice cannot be illegal. > > OK, let's try an extreme example. Let's say that I suggested to > someone that they should help their partner select a lead by orienting > their pen or pencil in a particular direction. > Please guys, get real! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 19:07:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:07:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <001201c80695$789d07f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c80695$789d07f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47051DB9.9030803@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: > > Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or > knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, > > My comment is plainly: > > I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws > it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? > You FAIL TO SEE ANY CONFLICT? Blind, that's what you are. > According to my understanding of the laws it is the use of UI and not the > creation of UI that is violation of laws. Consequently (unless you can point > me to a law that says otherwise) the solution is crystal clear: > Dealt with 27 times already. But I'm the one that always keeps up saying the same things, am I? > "Thou shalt avoid giving MI to opponents even if the result is creating UI > to your partner". > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 4 19:08:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: <4701A772.3020707@ntlworld.com> <20071002032816.66f8df26@linuxbox> <470253F9.50008@skynet.be> <20071002122557.390bed8f@linuxbox> <47034331.7070708@skynet.be> <47040E9C.7090307@t-online.de> <4704B670.1060007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47051DF6.9000101@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> When Nigel says the TD should be able to force a player to guess, he >> is not talking about the player who is genuinely unaware, but to the >> one who needs a "guess" to determine what his partner is trying to >> tell him. Such a "guess" is based on much more than mere guesswork, >> and that much more needs to be divulged. And it boils down to telling >> them the guess. > > Herman is exactly right here! When "such a 'guess' is based on much > more than mere guesswork... *that much more* [empahsis mine] needs to > be divulged. > > But while that may well "boil[] down to telling them the guess" in > nearly every case, the laws *require* you to divulge "the much more" > while *forbidding* you from divulging "the guess". > Ehmm... Law number please? > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 21:25:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:25:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <47051DB9.9030803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c806bc$50bed0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Sven Pran wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: > > > > Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or > > knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, > > > > My comment is plainly: > > > > I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the > laws > > it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? > > > > You FAIL TO SEE ANY CONFLICT? > > Blind, that's what you are. > > > According to my understanding of the laws it is the use of UI and not > the > > creation of UI that is violation of laws. Consequently (unless you can > point > > me to a law that says otherwise) the solution is crystal clear: > > > > Dealt with 27 times already. > But I'm the one that always keeps up saying the same things, am I? > > > "Thou shalt avoid giving MI to opponents even if the result is creating > UI > > to your partner". In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?" Why do YOU not provide a law number where it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? Because you cannot? Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 4 22:28:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:28:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <001901c806bc$50bed0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001901c806bc$50bed0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael [snipped] > > In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?" Did he? I guess I missed it, as I have stopped reading Herman's posts. I am prepared to argue with Herman about the "De Wael school" prescription for disclosing non-agreements, or about the ethics of the undisclosed "Herman 1H bid", until, as they say, the cows come home. I will even confess to perhaps having played some part in extending some of these discussions interminably when there seems to be nothing more to be said. One should note, however, that those arguments, overwrought though they may sometimes be, are about bridge laws, which is our chosen subject. This is the internet. Insults happen. We may not like the general lack of civility we find on the net, but we either live with it or leave. But there is one line we do not cross. AFAIC, Herman crossed that line this morning when I received a post in which he requested my help "to get this poster expelled". Those were not insults; they were threats. "Apologize or face the consequences"?! Sorry, Herman, welcome to my killfile (you're all by yourself there). Meanwhile, if someone cares and wants to tell me which of my posts was being referred to, I'll see what I can do for a law number. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 23:07:55 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 23:07:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: 4. oktober 2007 22:29 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick > > On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael [snipped] > > > > In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?" > > Did he? I guess I missed it, as I have stopped reading Herman's posts. Yes, you had written: > Herman is exactly right here! When "such a 'guess' is based on much > more than mere guesswork... *that much more* [empahsis mine] needs to > be divulged. > > But while that may well "boil[] down to telling them the guess" in > nearly every case, the laws *require* you to divulge "the much more" > while *forbidding* you from divulging "the guess". End quote > I am prepared to argue with Herman about the "De Wael school" > prescription for disclosing non-agreements, or about the ethics of > the undisclosed "Herman 1H bid", until, as they say, the cows come > home. I will even confess to perhaps having played some part in > extending some of these discussions interminably when there seems to > be nothing more to be said. One should note, however, that those > arguments, overwrought though they may sometimes be, are about bridge > laws, which is our chosen subject. > > This is the internet. Insults happen. We may not like the general > lack of civility we find on the net, but we either live with it or > leave. But there is one line we do not cross. AFAIC, Herman crossed > that line this morning when I received a post in which he requested > my help "to get this poster expelled". Those were not insults; they > were threats. "Apologize or face the consequences"?! Sorry, Herman, > welcome to my killfile (you're all by yourself there). > > Meanwhile, if someone cares and wants to tell me which of my posts > was being referred to, I'll see what I can do for a law number. Well, I have skipped most of this thread, but when I happened to notice the argument that the director is free to give illegal advices I couldn't help objecting. Also there is a very common misunderstanding that giving UI is illegal and I notice with interest that Herman apparently takes that for a fact without even bothering to substantiate it with a law reference (which of course is impossible to find). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 4 23:56:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:56:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >exploiting the fact that partner would now know >that I would have passed over a limit 3H, and >therefore must have a marginal 3S bid, is not >active ethics. [snip] Law 72A4: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. WBF Code of Practice, 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. 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 Oct 5 00:10:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:10:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4704B2D0.2030500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>"Take my unlawful advice and tell them your guess, or >>don't take my unlawful advice and get an incorrect MI >>ruling. My advice is directly contrary to Law, but my >>incompetent ruling will be the same regardless." >> >>;-) Herman De Wael: >OK, that was the last straw. >Apologize or face the consequences. >Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this >poster expelled. >Words like these should not be tolerated. >There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is >totally inappropriate. Grattan Endicott (22nd August 2007): +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views may be sincerely held. Richard Hills: Yes, I apologise for using the word "incompetent", since that word could be interpreted as implying that Mister De Wael is an imbecile. I should have used the neutral word "incorrect" instead. I agree with Grattan Endicott that Mister De Wael's plausible but wrong views are sincerely held. In accordance with Mister De Wael's wishes, I will expel myself from the blml list for a period of time. I intend to return to the list once the new 2007 Laws are publicly released. 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 Oct 5 00:21:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:21:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4705676C.2050507@ntlworld.com> Although I haven't met either, I regard both Herman and Richard as friends. Richard has a light-hearted approach to BLML; long may he continue to educate and amuse us. Most of us have been the butt of Richard's humour, however, so we can sympathise with Herman for taking a joke literally. Richard would never purposely write anything to hurt anybody and I'm sure that Herman will soon recognize this. Perhaps, we BLMLers should all take more care to observe elementary netiquette -- avoiding ad hominem attacks -- it is so easy to misconstrue informal writing -- as Brian Mathews recently pointed out to me. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 5 00:57:14 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:57:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <4705676C.2050507@ntlworld.com> References: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4705676C.2050507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47056FCA.1070809@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] > Perhaps, we BLMLers should all take more care to observe elementary > netiquette -- avoiding ad hominem attacks -- it is so easy to > misconstrue informal writing -- as Brian Mathews recently pointed out > to me. [Nige2] Arrrh... Brian *MEADOWS* I meant :( From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 5 01:01:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:01:45 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 04/10/2007 22:57:25 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Paul Lamford: [snip] >exploiting the fact that partner would now know >that I would have passed over a limit 3H, and >therefore must have a marginal 3S bid, is not >active ethics. [snip] Law 72A4: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. Thanks for that clarification. Then I would rate 3S quite highly in the auction as stated; it is known to be only four and is now limited, but still I think I prefer double. I contested a claim once, which required a finesse which was almost certain to be right. The appeal committee ruled that the declarer could not take the finesse as he had not stated this to be his intention, but the wording of their decision was a mild rebuke of my action in contesting it. Paul From mustikka at charter.net Fri Oct 5 02:31:49 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:31:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep issick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c80698$bf13a330$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c806e7$1f1c2790$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Herman de Wael wrote: >> Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting? > If there were something to object, surely regulars on this list would object to what Richard was saying. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 5 03:17:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:17:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C48AF2B-4185-4B2A-B66A-DCB98D8E7BF2@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 4, 2007, at 6:10 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Yes, I apologise for using the word "incompetent", > since that word could be interpreted as implying that > Mister De Wael is an imbecile. One might describe someone as incompetent without implying he's an imbecile. Main Entry: im?be?cile Pronunciation: 'im-b&-s&l, -"sil Function: noun Etymology: French imb?cile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus 1 usually offensive : a person affected with moderate mental retardation 2 : FOOL, IDIOT Main Entry: in?com?pe?tent Pronunciation: (")in-'k?m-p&-t&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French incomp?tent, from in- + comp?tent competent 1 : not legally qualified 2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose 3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly Herman is, I'm sure, legally qualified to direct. He may be, or thought to be, unsuitable to do so, given his views. Doesn't make him a fool or an idiot - or mentally retarded. I do grant that some folks in general, and Herman in particular, might find the description "incompetent," when applied to them, offensive. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Oct 6 00:14:43 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:14:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4704B2D0.2030500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071005151041.01beb7e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> This is indeed a sad day. I am only suffering with this list as a tax deduction, and really only read Richard for laws and David for entertainment. Long since I have learnt much about the laws of bridge but at least I have been entertained. So roll on next set of laws say I Tony (Sydney) At 03:10 PM 4/10/2007, you wrote: >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > > >>"Take my unlawful advice and tell them your guess, or > >>don't take my unlawful advice and get an incorrect MI > >>ruling. My advice is directly contrary to Law, but my > >>incompetent ruling will be the same regardless." > >> > >>;-) > >Herman De Wael: > > >OK, that was the last straw. > >Apologize or face the consequences. > >Please stand by me, some other readers, to get this > >poster expelled. > >Words like these should not be tolerated. > >There is nothing funny about them and a smiley is > >totally inappropriate. > >Grattan Endicott (22nd August 2007): > >+=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when a >contributor of views that are, at best, plausible but >wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views may be >sincerely held. > >Richard Hills: > >Yes, I apologise for using the word "incompetent", >since that word could be interpreted as implying that >Mister De Wael is an imbecile. I should have used the >neutral word "incorrect" instead. > >I agree with Grattan Endicott that Mister De Wael's >plausible but wrong views are sincerely held. > >In accordance with Mister De Wael's wishes, I will >expel myself from the blml list for a period of time. >I intend to return to the list once the new 2007 Laws >are publicly released. > > >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 Fri Oct 5 08:59:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:59:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick__sheik?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=27_s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <001201c80695$789d07f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <4704F47D.000007.88349@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005085735.028335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:47 4/10/2007 +0200, you wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: > >Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or >knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, > >My comment is plainly: > >I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws >it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 17:46:36 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:46:36 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: Another try! Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: ...............Q65432 ...............104 ...............97 ...............J42 J97 K8 K872 A9653 654 KJ82 865 73 ...............A10 ...............QJ ...............AQ103 ...............AKQ109 Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams West North East South Pass Pass 2H! 3H! Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass(H) 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of hearts, and switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" And, no there were 13 cards in each hand, despite my incompetence. Paul Lamford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071004/2f2ae8a6/attachment-0001.htm From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:29:56 2007 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:59:56 +0530 Subject: [blml] remove from mailing list Message-ID: <011301c806ac$3b700dc0$ef7040db@drraghavan> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071004/556d7907/attachment-0001.htm From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 5 09:29:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:29:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?UhskQnFHGyhCLl86X1JlOl9fVGhlX3NpeHRoX3Np?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?Y2tfX3NoZWlrJ19zX3NpeHRoX3NoZWVwX2lzX3NpY2tbU0VDPVVOT0ZG?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?SUNJQUxd?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005085735.028335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005085735.028335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200710050729.AA10907@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >At 16:47 4/10/2007 +0200, you wrote: >>Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: >> >>Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or >>knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, >> >>My comment is plainly: >> >>I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws >>it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? > >Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations. Hold it right there! Let's look at the text of 73B1 in full: ************************************************ B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. ************************************************ This says (if we leave out the intermediate stuff) "Partners shall not communicate through explanations given or not given to [the opponents]. " A little ambiguous, to be sure, and a rewording might be useful. But a commonsense reading is that it is wrong to INTENTIONALLY pass info to pard under the guise of making an explanation. On the other hand, if the correct and legitimate answer to a question INADVERTENTLY and INCIDENTALLY passes info to pard, this is (IMO) not a violation of 73B1, but is UI. However, Ui is only a problem if pard could have used it, in which case there can be a score adjustment..... Several people have alreaady pointed this out. I think that in the 2019 laws (well, that's a little pessimistic, 2018 laws) this could usefully be reworded. But (IMO) there's not a real problem now (unless one strains at gnats). -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 10:02:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:02:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <001901c806bc$50bed0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001901c806bc$50bed0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4705EF89.5050706@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: >>> >>> Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or >>> knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, >>> >>> My comment is plainly: >>> >>> I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the >> laws >>> it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? >>> >> You FAIL TO SEE ANY CONFLICT? >> >> Blind, that's what you are. >> >>> According to my understanding of the laws it is the use of UI and not >> the >>> creation of UI that is violation of laws. Consequently (unless you can >> point >>> me to a law that says otherwise) the solution is crystal clear: >>> >> Dealt with 27 times already. >> But I'm the one that always keeps up saying the same things, am I? >> >>> "Thou shalt avoid giving MI to opponents even if the result is creating >> UI >>> to your partner". > > In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?" > > Why do YOU not provide a law number where it is stated that "knowingly > creating UI" is an offence? Because you cannot? > L73B1, L75D2 Is two enough? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 10:05:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:05:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001e01c806ca$a23ff4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4705F02C.5090806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> Sent: 4. oktober 2007 22:29 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick >> >> On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael [snipped] >>> In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?" >> Did he? I guess I missed it, as I have stopped reading Herman's posts. > > Yes, you had written: > >> Herman is exactly right here! When "such a 'guess' is based on much >> more than mere guesswork... *that much more* [empahsis mine] needs to >> be divulged. >> >> But while that may well "boil[] down to telling them the guess" in >> nearly every case, the laws *require* you to divulge "the much more" >> while *forbidding* you from divulging "the guess". > > End quote > >> I am prepared to argue with Herman about the "De Wael school" >> prescription for disclosing non-agreements, or about the ethics of >> the undisclosed "Herman 1H bid", until, as they say, the cows come >> home. I will even confess to perhaps having played some part in >> extending some of these discussions interminably when there seems to >> be nothing more to be said. One should note, however, that those >> arguments, overwrought though they may sometimes be, are about bridge >> laws, which is our chosen subject. >> >> This is the internet. Insults happen. We may not like the general >> lack of civility we find on the net, but we either live with it or >> leave. But there is one line we do not cross. AFAIC, Herman crossed >> that line this morning when I received a post in which he requested >> my help "to get this poster expelled". Those were not insults; they >> were threats. "Apologize or face the consequences"?! Sorry, Herman, >> welcome to my killfile (you're all by yourself there). >> >> Meanwhile, if someone cares and wants to tell me which of my posts >> was being referred to, I'll see what I can do for a law number. > > > Well, I have skipped most of this thread, but when I happened to notice the > argument that the director is free to give illegal advices I couldn't help > objecting. > But the advice is not illegal! This is circular reasoning: Herman is wrong, therefore the advice is illegal, therefore Herman is wrong. > Also there is a very common misunderstanding that giving UI is illegal and I > notice with interest that Herman apparently takes that for a fact without > even bothering to substantiate it with a law reference (which of course is > impossible to find). > L73B1, L75D2 But of course if you choose to disregard laws that do not fit your preconceived notions, then you are right, there are no laws that say "thou shalt not give UI". > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 5 11:05:39 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:05:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? In-Reply-To: <00e201c8069a$d1e78380$6d02a8c0@DKLaptop> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005110506.02838b50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:25 4/10/2007 -0400, David Kent wrote: >.................Q65432 >.................104 >.................973 >.................J42 >J97 K8 >K872 AJ963 >654 KJ82 >865 73 >.................A10 >.................QJ >.................AQ10 >.................AKQ109 > >Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams >West North East South >Pass Pass 2H! 3H! >Pass 3NT Pass Pass >Pass(H) > >2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and >3NT >said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and > >think >the >bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of >hearts, and > >switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The > >question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" You put the H10 back where it belonged. The deal stands. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 5 11:07:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:07:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005110639.0283a900@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:50 4/10/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >Another try! From me too. >Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: > >...............Q65432 >...............104 >...............97 >...............J42 >J97 K8 >K872 A9653 >654 KJ82 >865 73 >...............A10 >...............QJ >...............AQ103 >...............AKQ109 > >Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams >West North East South >Pass Pass 2H! 3H! >Pass 3NT Pass Pass >Pass(H) > >2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT >said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and think >the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of >hearts, and >switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The >question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" You call the director because the slow pass suggested 3NT was unclassical. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 11:09:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:09:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick__sheik?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=27_s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005085735.028335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c8072f$74bf4a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: > > > >Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or > >knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, > > > >My comment is plainly: > > > >I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the > >laws it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? > > Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations. Yes, exactly the law I anticipated, just confirming that you too are a victim of this misunderstanding. Quote: Law 73B1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. End quote. You (and many other players) apparently understand this law to prohibit all asking (or not asking) questions of opponents, all alerts (or missing alerts) and all explanations given (or not given) because of the fact that any such action (or lack of action!) will necessarily create information that is unauthorized to your partner. This understanding is obviously ridiculous. Law 73B1 does not in any way prohibit the creation as such of unauthorized information; it prohibits using actions like the ones specified as a means of communication with partner. Such communication is established if and when partner makes any use of the extraneous information, not when it is created. So the alleged conflict is no conflict at all. Your prime duty is to give a true, complete and correct explanation of your partnership's agreements, and your partner's duty is to avoid using any information he receives from your explanation for his subsequent choice of actions. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 11:16:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:16:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4705EF89.5050706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c80730$6f145fd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > Why do YOU not provide a law number where it is stated that "knowingly > > creating UI" is an offence? Because you cannot? > > > > L73B1, L75D2 > > Is two enough? I have commented on L73B1 in my response to Alain. Your reference to L75D2 is surprising to say the least. This law is in no way relevant to the question of creating UI when giving explanations as dictated in Law 75C. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 11:24:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:24:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <4705F02C.5090806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c80731$891ed3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > But the advice is not illegal! A director is violating Law 81B2 if he gives an advice to take an action that will violate the bridge laws. Such an advice is therefore illegal. (For the record: The same advice given by any person not commissioned as a director is of course not illegal!) Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 11:31:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:37 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E=5F=3A=5FRe?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A=5F=5FThe=5Fsixth=5Fsick=5F=5Fsheik=27=5Fs=5Fsix?= =?iso-8859-1?q?th=5Fsheep=5Fis=5Fsick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <200710050729.AA10907@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20071005085735.028335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200710050729.AA10907@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47060479.7000302@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >> At 16:47 4/10/2007 +0200, you wrote: >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: >>> >>> Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or >>> knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, >>> >>> My comment is plainly: >>> >>> I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws >>> it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? >> Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations. > > Hold it right there! Let's look at the text of 73B1 in full: > ************************************************ > B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > 1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are > made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not > asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to > them. > ************************************************ > > This says (if we leave out the intermediate stuff) > > "Partners shall not communicate through explanations given or not > given to [the opponents]. " > > A little ambiguous, to be sure, and a rewording might be useful. But a > commonsense reading is that it is wrong to INTENTIONALLY pass info > to pard under the guise of making an explanation. On the other hand, > if the correct and legitimate answer to a question INADVERTENTLY > and INCIDENTALLY passes info to pard, this is (IMO) not a violation > of 73B1, but is UI. However, Ui is only a problem if pard could have used > it, in which case there can be a score adjustment..... Several people > have alreaady pointed this out. > This is all just trying to prove a point that is not even important. You ask for a law that says "thou shalt not give UI". I give you two such laws. You take one of them, and dissect it. You use a somewhat dubious interpretation to come up with what amounts to "thou shalt not willingly give UI". You happily forget that the law on UI does not distinguish between wilfully given and accidental UI - both are dealt with in the same way. But what you are left with is the other lawnumber that I cited, and which is very very clear on this matter: "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". Many of you have the same problem. You start with a preconceived idea, and read the laws with that preconception. You use the laws which support your case, interpret a few others in that light, and forget the laws that go against your opinion. You really need to look at this problem with a little recul. Don't counter this with "you too, Herman", please. I have looked at all the laws and have seen that there is a dilemma. Many of you still look at this and ask "what's the problem?". There is a problem, and it has two solutions. I believe that both solutions are workable - you keep saying that mine is illegal. I believe that my solution is a better one, and I have five reasons why this is so. I have thought about this problem. Please listen to me, and don't dismiss me with the usual "there's Herman again". > I think that in the 2019 laws (well, that's a little pessimistic, 2018 laws) > this could usefully be reworded. But (IMO) there's not a real problem > now (unless one strains at gnats). > I don't believe there is a problem either. I will happily continue to play according to the dWs, and accept the rulings, and get better final scores than followers of the Majority School. And I will not be acting illegally - despite what you may think about it. As TD, I will happily give rulings to followers of dWS and MS alike. My rulings will be the same as the yours (yes, they will). As a coach, I will continue to give the dWS advice to my players. They will do as I do, and they will get better final scores than your players; and they will not have acted illegally (apart from the infraction of MI, which will be ruled upon). Don't say that your players will have acted less illegally, because they will have given UI, which will be ruled upon. We agree to disagree on which is the worse infraction, but meanwhile we will rule on the infractions. And we will rule the same way (as TDs). I don't believe the laws need to clear this up. The better way of clearing up this mess is for the WBF to come out on my side. Many people would not find that acceptable - so maybe it's better if they stay quiet for another 10 years. If the WBF would wish, OTOH, to clear up the mess by coming out on the side of the MS, please don't do so before having read my five arguments why this would be a bad thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 14:23:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:23:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick?= In-Reply-To: <000c01c80731$891ed3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c80731$891ed3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47062CDD.2030306@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> But the advice is not illegal! > > A director is violating Law 81B2 if he gives an advice to take an action > that will violate the bridge laws. Such an advice is therefore illegal. > But the action does not violate the bridge laws! I've asked it already: what law number is broken when a player reveals his guess about what partner may be meaning with his bid? > (For the record: The same advice given by any person not commissioned as a > director is of course not illegal!) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 14:25:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:25:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick_sheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000b01c80730$6f145fd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c80730$6f145fd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47062D48.2020303@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >>> Why do YOU not provide a law number where it is stated that "knowingly >>> creating UI" is an offence? Because you cannot? >>> >> L73B1, L75D2 >> >> Is two enough? > > I have commented on L73B1 in my response to Alain. > Your reference to L75D2 is surprising to say the least. This law is in no > way relevant to the question of creating UI when giving explanations as > dictated in Law 75C. > Are you serious? It is the uppermost important law on this issue! Really Sven, this beats everything! I am totally flabbergasted and don't take your comments seriously from now on. Please some others, tell Sven that he is wrong in this. I cannot cope. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 14:35:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:35:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__The_sixth_sick__sheik?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=27_s_sixth_sheep_is_sick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000a01c8072f$74bf4a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c8072f$74bf4a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47062FA5.6070106@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things: >>> >>> Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or >>> knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book, >>> >>> My comment is plainly: >>> >>> I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the >>> laws it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence? >> Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations. > > Yes, exactly the law I anticipated, just confirming that you too are a > victim of this misunderstanding. > No Sven, you are victim of a serious misunderstanding. > Quote: > Law 73B1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not > given to them. > End quote. > > You (and many other players) apparently understand this law to prohibit all > asking (or not asking) questions of opponents, no of course not > all alerts (or missing > alerts) and all explanations given (or not given) because of the fact that > any such action (or lack of action!) will necessarily create information > that is unauthorized to your partner. > no, of course not > This understanding is obviously ridiculous. > no, of course it is not. And don't use obvious when discussing something that the other is totally not agreeing to. > Law 73B1 does not in any way prohibit the creation as such of unauthorized > information; it prohibits using actions like the ones specified as a means > of communication with partner. Such communication is established if and when > partner makes any use of the extraneous information, not when it is created. > Indeed, it prohibits using actions as a means of communication. So the player is not allowed to say "partner, you forgot to alert, this was Ghestem". And the player is also not allowed to use an alert or an answer to communicate that same message to partner. So in fact, yes, this rule does prohibit giving UI. Or rather, it prohibits using certain actions (alerting, answering) as a method of transmitting interesting information to partner. I think that should be obvious. It is probably because you want to claim that the MS actions are legal that you believe that this law does not apply. But it does, and the MS actions are illegal. Which does not mean they should not be done, no - I quite realize that both the MS and the dWS actions are illegal, and that a player is forced to break one law or another, and that he must be allowed to get away with a rectification for his irregularity without further penalty. But that goes for both actions. > So the alleged conflict is no conflict at all. yes it is. Your prime duty is to give a > true, complete and correct explanation of your partnership's agreements, and > your partner's duty is to avoid using any information he receives from your > explanation for his subsequent choice of actions. > Sorry, but this is your interpretation, not mine. I believe the prime duty is to avoid giving UI to partner. And just stating that it is not so is not an argument. I am quite willing to debate the strength of both obligations, but not if you continue to argue that the MS player does nothing wrong. I hope that you take both my last posts together. In both, I have taken apart your argument that there is no law "thou shalt not give UI". Either one should suffice, but both together should really convince the world (if not Sven) that there is such a law. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Fri Oct 5 14:46:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:46:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? References: Message-ID: <003001c8074d$c9017010$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? > Another try! > > Richard's Rueful Rabbit story reminds me of the following hand: > > > ...............Q65432 > ...............104 > ...............97 > ...............J42 > J97 K8 > K872 A9653 > 654 KJ82 > 865 73 > ...............A10 > ...............QJ > ...............AQ103 > ...............AKQ109 > > Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams > West North East South > Pass Pass 2H! 3H! > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass(H) West revokes on the 3rd round. You use dummy's entry to take the D foinesse and cash out for 8 tricks plus the 1 for the revoke. Seems easy enough to me. john > > 2H was a 5-9 weak two. 3H said "please bid 3NT with a heart stop" and 3NT > said "I missed pard, but I am unaware of the mechanical error rule and > think > the bid has to stand". The final pass was slow. East led the six of > hearts, and > switched to a diamond after five rounds of hearts had been cashed. The > question is "How do you now make 3NT as dummy?" > > And, no there were 13 cards in each hand, despite my incompetence. > > Paul Lamford > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 15:48:31 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:48:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> The topic was Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: The sixth sick sheik' s sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]. Herman wrote, and surely everyone agrees: > > So the player is not allowed to say "partner, you forgot to alert, > this was Ghestem". > This is true also prior to opening lead if the forgetter is on lead. Leader's partner is not allowed, before opening lead, to tell declarer and partner that leader forgot to alert a bid. That is obvious, but my question is, how often does it matter? I suspect the violation often helps---and never hurts---the defending side, for now declarer cannot claim MI during the play of the hand, and the defenders are never* penalized. *My question is, is it really _never_? I know in theory they can be penalized, but in practice, has it ever happened? I have not read all of the cases in the ACBL casebooks, but I seem to recall in those that I have read that the early defender's clarification was never penalized. Can anyone give an example of penalty in practice? In one case, I was declarer, my RHO was (I was told) an ACBL laws committee member; both opponents had 10,000 masterpoints. I was declarer, and before opening lead, RHO announced that LHO had forgotten, for the tenth time, that they play support doubles---RHO had made an unalerted support double. I called the director, who knew them both and said something like "Hey, you're not supposed to do that." "Sorry." He laughed, left without another word, and never came back. Now how would I prove they took advantage of the information? It would seem ridiculous to try, given the director's actions. And they probably did not take advantage; I really can't be sure or prove anything when we are being hurried to the next round, and besides RHO's early clarification saved a later director call that might have happened had they followed the law. But why is the burden of proof when it involves the play of the hand generally 100% on the declaring side? No lead penalties here? No protection during the play? So, again, this is my question: Is the defender's pre-opening-lead announcing of a failure to alert ever penalized in practice? I am not referring to club games, where anything can happen. I am referring to large, national tournaments. I realize it _can_ be penalized. But is it? Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 5 17:44:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:44:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47065BC5.1090900@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The topic was Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: The sixth sick sheik' s sixth > sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]. > > Herman wrote, and surely everyone agrees: >> So the player is not allowed to say "partner, you forgot to alert, >> this was Ghestem". >> > > This is true also prior to opening lead if the forgetter is on lead. > Leader's partner is not allowed, before opening lead, to tell declarer > and partner that leader forgot to alert a bid. That is obvious, but > my question is, how often does it matter? I suspect the violation > often helps---and never hurts---the defending side, for now declarer > cannot claim MI during the play of the hand, and the defenders are > never* penalized. > > *My question is, is it really _never_? I know in theory they can be > penalized, but in practice, has it ever happened? I have not read all > of the cases in the ACBL casebooks, but I seem to recall in those that > I have read that the early defender's clarification was never > penalized. Can anyone give an example of penalty in practice? > The reason why this almost never happens is because all players are taught at an early moment not to correct the misexplanations. So nobody does it, so there are very few rulings about this. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I believe the "not giving UI" rule is more important than the "not give MI" rule. Everyone knows and follows the more stringent law! But Jerry asked for cases, and we have had one in Pula recently. Sadly, I do not have the details, but the case involved a Multi-2D opening which was explained as strong, with diamonds. Bidder immediately corrected this and thought to be ethical when passing 3Cl. However, we ruled that the pair had used the UI in both directions, and ruled that responder (with four diamonds AKxx) would not stop before 5Di, and so we decided on 5HeX-3 (rather generously, -4 would have been possible). > In one case, I was declarer, my RHO was (I was told) an ACBL laws > committee member; both opponents had 10,000 masterpoints. I was > declarer, and before opening lead, RHO announced that LHO had > forgotten, for the tenth time, that they play support doubles---RHO > had made an unalerted support double. I called the director, who knew > them both and said something like "Hey, you're not supposed to do > that." "Sorry." He laughed, left without another word, and never > came back. Now how would I prove they took advantage of the > information? It would seem ridiculous to try, given the director's > actions. And they probably did not take advantage; I really can't be > sure or prove anything when we are being hurried to the next round, > and besides RHO's early clarification saved a later director call that > might have happened had they followed the law. But why is the burden > of proof when it involves the play of the hand generally 100% on the > declaring side? No lead penalties here? No protection during the > play? > > So, again, this is my question: Is the defender's pre-opening-lead > announcing of a failure to alert ever penalized in practice? I am not > referring to club games, where anything can happen. I am referring to > large, national tournaments. I realize it _can_ be penalized. But is > it? Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or > nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead > penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? > Well, lead penalties are out of the question, of course. Use of UI during play is indeed rather difficult to judge, and I don't have cases either. > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 5 18:45:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:45:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > So, again, this is my question: Is the defender's pre-opening-lead > announcing of a failure to alert ever penalized in practice? I am not > referring to club games, where anything can happen. I am referring to > large, national tournaments. I realize it _can_ be penalized. But is > it? Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or > nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead > penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? I don't know the answer to your question. I have another point to make. I don't think the laws provide for lead penalties in this scenario, so I think if the director ever did "give a lead penalty" in such a case, it would be director error. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 18:57:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:57:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c80770$d2b44420$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman .............. > So, again, this is my question: Is the defender's pre-opening-lead > announcing of a failure to alert ever penalized in practice? I am not > referring to club games, where anything can happen. I am referring to > large, national tournaments. I realize it _can_ be penalized. But is > it? Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or > nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead > penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? In short: A player must not in any way during the auction indicate that his partner has given misinformation. However he must always obey Law 75C and correctly answer questions on the relevant partnership agreements even if such answers could reveal previous misinformation from his side. For the defenders the prohibition applies until the end of the play period. Declarer and dummy must after the final pass and before the opening lead inform (without being asked) defenders of any misinformation that their side has given to the defenders during the auction. The Director should be called and he must first of all offer the defense an application of Law 21B1. If a player illegally reveals misinformation from his partner the Director should be called and must then try the situation for the possibility that the resulting unauthorized information caused by this illegal revelation and made available to the partner has aided his side and thereby damaged the other side. In all cases, if the Director rules damage (that could not be avoided by the application of Law 21B if relevant) he is supposed to adjust the result on the board. Note that if the Director finds no damage to non-offending side he will rule no adjustment on the board. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 19:06:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:06:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <47065BC5.1090900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > But Jerry asked for cases, and we have had one in Pula recently. > Sadly, I do not have the details, but the case involved a Multi-2D > opening which was explained as strong, with diamonds. Bidder > immediately corrected this and thought to be ethical when passing 3Cl. > > However, we ruled that the pair had used the UI in both directions, > and ruled that responder (with four diamonds AKxx) would not stop > before 5Di, and so we decided on 5HeX-3 (rather generously, -4 would > have been possible). I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make no sense to me. Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please clarify. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 20:25:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:25:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS isS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c8077d$2c23f6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > So, again, this is my question: Is the defender's pre-opening-lead > > announcing of a failure to alert ever penalized in practice? I am not > > referring to club games, where anything can happen. I am referring to > > large, national tournaments. I realize it _can_ be penalized. But is > > it? Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or > > nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead > > penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? > > I don't know the answer to your question. I have another point to > make. I don't think the laws provide for lead penalties in this > scenario, so I think if the director ever did "give a lead penalty" > in such a case, it would be director error. As in all UI cases the Director can never make "correct" rulings on the fly without inspecting the hands. This would be a severe director error. Instead he shall let the play proceed, standing ready to adjust the result if he subsequently finds damage to non-offending side. Consequently lead penalties will never be applicable in misinformation cases. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 20:35:06 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:35:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <47065BC5.1090900@skynet.be> <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710051135qf27353aw7178ea1c70f75394@mail.gmail.com> Please let me clarify: The cases I seek concern only the play of the hand. There are many cases in the casebooks where rulings affect the auction after this kind of UI, but none that I recall affecting the play of the hand. This is the example I seek: 1. The auction is over, but there was a failure to alert on the defending side. Assume no UI yet. 2. While one defender is considering his opening lead, his partner announces his partner's failure to alert, and declarer (perhaps pointlessly) calls the director. (You can assume the auction was reopened, but there were no changes.) 3. Director, now or later, makes some ruling to protect the declaring side during the play period due to the defenders just-created UI. I wish to know if there are any specific examples of this sequence of events. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 5 21:01:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:01:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710051135qf27353aw7178ea1c70f75394@mail.gmail.com> References: <47065BC5.1090900@skynet.be> <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710051135qf27353aw7178ea1c70f75394@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <58B73671-5AB5-4CC6-AB46-5E1A0E4F58BF@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I wish to know if there are any specific examples of this sequence > of events. I know of none. Which doesn't mean much. How many hands are played every day? How often does this scenario crop up? How many times is the situation recorded? You need to narrow your search field. Considerably. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 5 21:04:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:04:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710050648m56200bd3qe1e4a0b68f33ffd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55AD9B9D-96C7-4A10-82E0-220AFBCB085B@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Secondary question---is it ever penalized in ACBL regionals or > nationals? And in the ACBL, does the director ever give a lead > penalty or hang around to protect the declaring side? If you want to know ACBL practice, I suggest you ask Rick Beye. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 5 21:14:56 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:14:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS isS) In-Reply-To: <000301c8077d$2c23f6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c8077d$2c23f6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > As in all UI cases the Director can never make "correct" rulings on > the fly > without inspecting the hands. This would be a severe director error. > > Instead he shall let the play proceed, standing ready to adjust the > result > if he subsequently finds damage to non-offending side. Consequently > lead > penalties will never be applicable in misinformation cases. Your logic is confusing. :-) It seems we agree that one does not apply lead penalties in the example case, but we get there via different routes. I assert that in order to impose lead penalties, one must be led to Law 26 via some chain in the laws, and that in this case there is no such chain. You seem to be saying that one should not make a ruling regarding score adjustment in a UI case without looking at the hands, and that you should not look at the hands until the play is over. So far so good. Then you conclude "lead penalties will never be applicable in misinformation cases". The conclusion does not follow from the premises. BTW, I would define a "UI case" as one where UI has been - or has alleged to have been, or may have been - used. The mere existence of UI does not make, for me, a UI case. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 5 22:46:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:46:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (wasSSSSS isS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c80790$dbd00fb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Sorry for confusing - see below > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > As in all UI cases the Director can never make "correct" rulings on > > the fly > > without inspecting the hands. This would be a severe director error. > > > > Instead he shall let the play proceed, standing ready to adjust the > > result > > if he subsequently finds damage to non-offending side. Consequently > > lead > > penalties will never be applicable in misinformation cases. > > Your logic is confusing. :-) > > It seems we agree that one does not apply lead penalties in the > example case, but we get there via different routes. > > I assert that in order to impose lead penalties, one must be led to > Law 26 via some chain in the laws, and that in this case there is no > such chain. > > You seem to be saying that one should not make a ruling regarding > score adjustment in a UI case without looking at the hands, and that > you should not look at the hands until the play is over. So far so > good. Then you conclude "lead penalties will never be applicable in > misinformation cases". The conclusion does not follow from the premises. In order to impose a lead penalty the ruling must have been made when the lead is to be made. But in UI cases we must not only determine if there has been UI but also if the player receiving UI could have let this UI influence his choice among available alternatives. We cannot decide this without knowing his cards. So because we should never look at a player's cards in order to make a ruling we should delay all such rulings until his cards have been exposed in a regular manner. Which of course prevents us from ruling a lead penalty as the consequence of UI? > BTW, I would define a "UI case" as one where UI has been - or has > alleged to have been, or may have been - used. The mere existence of > UI does not make, for me, a UI case. Absolutely correct. In UI cases the director must establish: 1: That UI has been available 2: That the player receiving UI could have used this UI when selecting his action over available logical alternatives. 3: That the selected action has resulted in damage to opponents (where damage is defined as opponents receiving a result poorer than what they could expect without the UI). Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 6 05:43:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 23:43:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (wasSSSSS isS) In-Reply-To: <000501c80790$dbd00fb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c80790$dbd00fb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <361C161A-C28F-43F2-89F5-5BD87564FBAF@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So because we should never look at a player's cards in order to make a > ruling we should delay all such rulings until his cards have been > exposed in > a regular manner. Which of course prevents us from ruling a lead > penalty as > the consequence of UI? Which would explain why there is no path in the laws from any law dealing with UI to Law 26, no? My point here being that the question of how and when we deal with UI is irrelevant to the case in hand because (a) it's not a UI case (it's an MI case) and (b) there is no relevant law that says "(TD may) issue a lead penalty". There is no relevant law that says that in a UI case, either. From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 6 09:17:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:17:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (wasSSSSS isS) In-Reply-To: <361C161A-C28F-43F2-89F5-5BD87564FBAF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c807e8$f67551b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > So because we should never look at a player's cards in order to > > make a ruling we should delay all such rulings until his cards > > have been exposed in a regular manner. Which of course prevents > > us from ruling a lead penalty as the consequence of UI? > > Which would explain why there is no path in the laws from any law > dealing with UI to Law 26, no? Don't forget that the "reason" for Law 26 is a specific kind of unauthorized information to a defender (to become); UI that can focus his interest on a particular suit (or suits). We have paths to Law 26 from other laws dealing with what essentially is this special kind of UI. Law 16 (The main law dealing with UI cases) sets the general principles for handling UI cases. Law 26 further specifies the handling in those cases where such specific kind of UI is present. So Law 26 actually changes a generic judgment case into a specific ruling case where circumstances permit, thus simplifying the director's job in these situations. Regards Sven > My point here being that the question of how and when we deal with UI > is irrelevant to the case in hand because (a) it's not a UI case > (it's an MI case) and (b) there is no relevant law that says "(TD > may) issue a lead penalty". > > There is no relevant law that says that in a UI case, either. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Oct 6 10:14:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:14:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c80772$0fefa950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470743F5.3010305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> But Jerry asked for cases, and we have had one in Pula recently. >> Sadly, I do not have the details, but the case involved a Multi-2D >> opening which was explained as strong, with diamonds. Bidder >> immediately corrected this and thought to be ethical when passing 3Cl. >> >> However, we ruled that the pair had used the UI in both directions, >> and ruled that responder (with four diamonds AKxx) would not stop >> before 5Di, and so we decided on 5HeX-3 (rather generously, -4 would >> have been possible). > > I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make no > sense to me. > > Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please clarify. > Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should consider to be an easy 5Di contract? > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 6 12:09:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:09:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <470743F5.3010305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c80801$00d0e9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > > I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make > > no sense to me. > > > > Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please clarify. > > > > Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really > remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. > Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should consider > to be an easy 5Di contract? I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete auction is important. In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" opening bid (opponents pass): 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in clubs") 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and shows additional values in clubs) 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades and shows additional values in clubs) (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but this clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed important. Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sat Oct 6 21:35:01 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:35:01 EDT Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? Message-ID: In a message dated 05/10/2007 13:46:31 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: > ...............Q65432 > ...............104 > ...............97 > ...............J42 > J97 K8 > K872 A9653 > 654 KJ82 > 865 73 > ...............A10 > ...............QJ > ...............AQ103 > ...............AKQ109 > > Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams > West North East South > Pass Pass 2H! 3H! > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass(H) >West revokes on the 3rd round. You use dummy's entry to take the D foinesse >and cash out for 8 tricks plus the 1 for the revoke. Seems easy enough to >me. john Possible, but what actually happened was that I, as dummy, argued that East had selected from LAs one suggested by his partner's hesitation. East had an 11 count, above range, and had opened a weak two hearts. The only thing West could have been thinking about, therefore, was saving in Four Hearts and East had UI from this. Therefore East must select the LA of a diamond on lead. Now North has nine tricks. Even if declarer plays the DQ on this lead, five rounds of clubs will squeeze East and the heart exit will eventually come to a second spade trick. The director agreed, awarding N/S +600 and E/W did not appeal. Note that Four Spades has four tricks to lose in the majors! From john at asimere.com Sat Oct 6 23:43:01 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:43:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? References: Message-ID: <000a01c80861$de67be90$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? > In a message dated 05/10/2007 13:46:31 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com > writes: >> ...............Q65432 >> ...............104 >> ...............97 >> ...............J42 >> J97 K8 >> K872 A9653 >> 654 KJ82 >> 865 73 >> ...............A10 >> ...............QJ >> ...............AQ103 >> ...............AKQ109 >> >> Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams >> West North East South >> Pass Pass 2H! 3H! >> Pass 3NT Pass Pass >> Pass(H) > >>West revokes on the 3rd round. You use dummy's entry to take the D >>foinesse >>and cash out for 8 tricks plus the 1 for the revoke. Seems easy enough to >>me. john > > Possible, but what actually happened was that I, as dummy, argued that > East > had selected from LAs one suggested by his partner's hesitation. East had > an > 11 count, above range, and had opened a weak two hearts. The only thing > West > could have been thinking about, therefore, was saving in Four Hearts and > East > had UI from this. Therefore East must select the LA of a diamond on lead. > Now > North has nine tricks. Even if declarer plays the DQ on this lead, five > rounds of clubs will squeeze East and the heart exit will eventually come > to a > second spade trick. The director agreed, awarding N/S +600 and E/W did > not > appeal. Note that Four Spades has four tricks to lose in the majors! > > I had a similar one with you in brighton c 10 yrs ago - was it this one? rgds john ... and of course I wouldn't appeal. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 7 00:38:00 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:38:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (wasSSSSS isS) References: <000501c80790$dbd00fb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <361C161A-C28F-43F2-89F5-5BD87564FBAF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <034601c80869$8dd51740$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Ed Repper wrote: > > My point here being that the question of how and when we deal with UI > is irrelevant to the case in hand because (a) it's not a UI case > (it's an MI case) and (b) there is no relevant law that says "(TD > may) issue a lead penalty". > > There is no relevant law that says that in a UI case, either. The TD should not even look at the hand record in such cases until play is completed, at least not at the table. There is no reason to, and it may inadvertently give out subtle information about the deal (e.g., by leaving the table when there is unlikely to be a problem, but not when there is a likelihood). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 7 12:51:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:51:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <000101c80801$00d0e9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c80801$00d0e9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4708BA19.3020903@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ........... >>> I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make >>> no sense to me. >>> >>> Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please clarify. >>> >> Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really >> remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. >> Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should consider >> to be an easy 5Di contract? > > I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete auction > is important. > > In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" > opening bid (opponents pass): > > 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in clubs") > > 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) > > 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and shows > additional values in clubs) > > 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) > > 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades and > shows additional values in clubs) > > (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but this > clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) > > So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed > important. > No Sven, it is absolutely not important once you rule that responder has used UI to stop anywhere below 5Di. And in case that Opener has passed a normally forcing bid by Responder, you can still rule that it could be using UI to choose any forcing bid, knowing that partner can always pass it. In fact, we ruled that a straight reply of 5Di was a LA. And so no, the complete actual auction is unimportant to the ruling. And I class this once again as - let's argue against Herman, why should we ever agree with anything he says? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 5 12:31:11 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:31:11 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E=5F?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5FThe=5Fsixth=5Fsick=5F=5Fsheik=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5Fs=5Fsixth=5Fsheep=5Fis=5Fsick=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5D?= References: <200710050729.AA10907@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4706126E.000001.98259@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- A little ambiguous, to be sure, and a rewording might be useful. But a commonsense reading is that it is wrong to INTENTIONALLY pass info to pard under the guise of making an explanation. On the other hand, if the correct and legitimate answer to a question INADVERTENTLY and INCIDENTALLY passes info to pard, this is (IMO) not a violation of 73B1, but is UI. However, Ui is only a problem if pard could have used it, in which case there can be a score adjustment..... Several people have alreaady pointed this out. AG : partner opens 1NT, you bid 2D (a transfer) and partner wrongly explains it as GF Stayman. In that case, you're right, the transmission is inadvertent. Now he bids 2S and you explain it (on request, of course) as a superacceptance. Here, you transmit information that he misunderstood your bid. Inadvertent means "without knowing it would happen" and this doesn't apply here.You know 100% that he will get the information. It is in those cases that L73B1 creates a problem, and that hDW (and YT) advocates a change of attitude. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071005/ad913c46/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/20071005/ad913c46/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071005/ad913c46/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 8 09:52:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:52:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who says dummy has no rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071008095241.028322e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 6/10/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 05/10/2007 13:46:31 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com >writes: > > ...............Q65432 > > ...............104 > > ...............97 > > ...............J42 > > J97 K8 > > K872 A9653 > > 654 KJ82 > > 865 73 > > ...............A10 > > ...............QJ > > ...............AQ103 > > ...............AKQ109 > > > > Dealer West; N/S Game; Teams > > West North East South > > Pass Pass 2H! 3H! > > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > > Pass(H) > > >West revokes on the 3rd round. You use dummy's entry to take the D > foinesse > >and cash out for 8 tricks plus the 1 for the revoke. Seems easy enough to > >me. john > >Possible, but what actually happened was that I, as dummy, argued that East >had selected from LAs one suggested by his partner's hesitation. I win ;-) From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 8 14:13:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:13:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> In a recent post, Sven clearly indicated what is wrong with the majority view on the problems regarding the dWS. I hope he allows me to quote two sentences - I guarantee they are not taken out of context: (mail from Sven in the thread with all the s's from 5/10/2007, 11:09 CET) The first sentence is "This understanding is obviously ridiculous." This sentence shows already clearly why there continues to be this problem. Sven, and probably many others, believe that their PoV is so obvious that any other view is ridiculous. Permit me to say that I find that kind of viewpoints very belittling; I have a different opinion, so yours is certainly not obvious, and to categorize my opinions as ridiculous -without reason, because it is obvious- is a sure sign that the writer has not thought this thing through. Let's then go to the second sentence, which contains a bit more solid argumentation: "Your prime duty is to give a true, complete and correct explanation of your partnership's agreements, ..." I do not question that there exists, in the sport of bridge, a very important duty, which can quite accurately be described in the words Sven uses. I do question however his word "prime". There is nothing in the laws that indicate that this very important duty, has "prime" importance. Surely Sven will recognize that there exists another very important duty, namely not to hand out UI to partner. The problem that the dWS addresses is which of these two duties has primacy. Sven states that not giving MI is the "prime" duty, but he asserts this without giving any evidence to support this. It is "obvious". Well, I don't believe it's obvious. I don't want to state that it's clearly wrong, as there is not very much evidence in the other sense either. I believe it is wrong however, but I am willing to concede that it may be right. But stating that it's obvious brings us no further in the discussion. Does anyone want to get the ball rolling in trying to prove primacy for one duty or the other? I think I have stated some arguments already, so I leave the floor to others first. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Oct 9 03:39:11 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:39:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:13 AM Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > But stating that it's obvious brings us no further in the discussion. > > Does anyone want to get the ball rolling in trying to prove primacy > for one duty or the other? I think I have stated some arguments > already, so I leave the floor to others first. > OK, I'm foolish enough to try to sum this up. Let's repeat L20 and L75C: L20 "F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). 2. During the Play Period After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions. " L75 "C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." Herman has decided that L73A has primacy, despite many attempts to convince him otherwise: "A. Proper Communication between Partners 1. How Effected Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." L73B may also apply" "B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." So, Herman believes that if partner gives an incorrect explanation of the pair's agreements, then he is required to explain to the opponents what the agreement would have been had partner's explanation been correct, so as not to wake partner up to the actual agreements, thereby effecting an illegal communication. However, he believes that giving a correct explanation of the agreements violates the Laws 73A and B and that his primary duty is to those laws, rather than 75C. So, his L20 explanations will be designed to keep partner asleep to the actual meaning of the auction, rather than giving correct information to the opponents (in those situations where giving correct information would wake up partner). I'm sure that he will correct me if I'm stating his position incorrectly. The essential problem in Herman's point of view is that the Laws do provide recourse for UI provided in the course of giving an explanation. In addition to L16, we also have L73C, which clearly acknowledges that some UI from partner is inevitable: "C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " However, should we adopt Herman's position, and give MI to opponents instead of UI to partner, we also run into L75D. The Laws emphatically do not allow an incorrect explanation (Herman's MI) to stay on the table: "D. Correcting Errors in Explanation 1. Explainer Notices Own Error If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). " Please note that this law uses the word "must", which is the highest priority in the Laws (see Preface). Note also the word "immediately". So, should a player decide that he may not provide UI to partner, but must instead give MI to the opponents, in the interests of L73A and L73B as stated, he must immediately call the Director and inform him of the violation. By use of the word "must", this becomes the highest priority as soon as known MI is present, and overrides the "shalls" in L73. While Herman is pondering among the "shalls" of whether or not he should give MI to avoid giving partner UI, it is the "must" of 75D that actually has the strongest wording of all. He may not give MI without summoning the TD. Deliberately giving MI to avoid giving UI then becomes pointless, because partner is going to get the UI shortly thereafter when the TD is summoned. Since the UI cannot be avoided by MI if partner has given an incorrect explanation without committing an even more serious violation, he might as well simply give the correct explanation, summoning the TD if needed so that the opponents can be provided L16 protection by the TD. That minimizes the damage to the auction from partner's MI, and has an additional advantage in simply telling the truth, rather than making up an agreement to keep partner in the dark. Telling the truth is a good thing. It appears in higher Laws than those of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In some form or another, people have been trying to tell Herman this for at least a dozen years. Hirsch Davis From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 9 06:20:23 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:20:23 +1300 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> Ficticious story - based on fact ... I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and LHO pitched the s5. All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and faced his spade five. After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and that he in fact has diamonds. The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be corrected. The zonal authority has allowed defenders to ask each other if they have any cards of the suit led when the do not follow. Play continues. Later the chief director makes a L12A1 ruling that the non-offenders have not been compensated for the irregularities (both defenders exposing their cards illegally). And a subsequent L12C2 adjustment. That adjustment being the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity (illegal exposure of quitted cards) not occurred. He rules that the most favourable result for the non-offenders is that they would have received a 1-trick penalty for a revoke. Comments on this ruling please. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 9 10:55:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:55:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> Hello Hirsh, having gone through your mail a first time by cursory reading, I notice a number of interesting points. Let me go through them as you write them: Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:13 AM > Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > >> But stating that it's obvious brings us no further in the discussion. >> >> Does anyone want to get the ball rolling in trying to prove primacy >> for one duty or the other? I think I have stated some arguments >> already, so I leave the floor to others first. >> > > > OK, I'm foolish enough to try to sum this up. > There's nothing foolish about trying to get to the bottom of this. > Let's repeat L20 and L75C: > > L20 [I think we know what this says] > > L75 > [and this one] > > Herman has decided that L73A has primacy, despite many attempts to convince > him otherwise: > No, Herman has not decided anything (well, I have, but for the sake of argument I am willing to keep the discussion going). > "A. Proper Communication between Partners > 1. How Effected > Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected > only by means of the calls and plays themselves." > L73B may also apply" > Exactly! > "B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > 1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not > given to them." > Exactly! So far, you have just listed the MI and UI laws. > So, Herman believes that if partner gives an incorrect explanation of the > pair's agreements, then he is required to explain to the opponents what the > agreement would have been had partner's explanation been correct, so as not > to wake partner up to the actual agreements, thereby effecting an illegal > communication. You should consider that anything a player says can be constructed as an illegal communication. It is customary to treat the communication of something that partner knows as AI (or at least not as UI). So telling him that his bid means something else than what he intended it as, is giving him UI; while telling him that his bid means what he intended it to mean is not UI. So my actions do NOT include an illegal communication, those of the MS do!! > However, he believes that giving a correct explanation of > the agreements violates the Laws 73A and B and that his primary duty is to > those laws, rather than 75C. So, his L20 explanations will be designed to > keep partner asleep to the actual meaning of the auction, rather than giving > correct information to the opponents (in those situations where giving > correct information would wake up partner). I'm sure that he will correct me > if I'm stating his position incorrectly. > You are stating my position correctly. You have not given any arguments as to why the one position should be more right or wrong than the other, so far. > The essential problem in Herman's point of view is that the Laws do provide > recourse for UI provided in the course of giving an explanation. In > addition to L16, we also have L73C, which clearly acknowledges that some UI > from partner is inevitable: > > "C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " > Yes, so? There is also a well-known recourse for MI, isn't there? > However, should we adopt Herman's position, and give MI to opponents instead > of UI to partner, we also run into L75D. The Laws emphatically do not allow > an incorrect explanation (Herman's MI) to stay on the table: > > "D. Correcting Errors in Explanation > > 1. Explainer Notices Own Error > > If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or > incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or > Law 40C). " > > Please note that this law uses the word "must", which is the highest > priority in the Laws (see Preface). Note also the word "immediately". So, > should a player decide that he may not provide UI to partner, but must > instead give MI to the opponents, in the interests of L73A and L73B as > stated, he must immediately call the Director and inform him of the > violation. By use of the word "must", this becomes the highest priority as > soon as known MI is present, and overrides the "shalls" in L73. > Aha, at last an argument. So, having (wilfully) given MI, the dWS player should apply L75D1, and thereby violate L75D2 in some other manner. > While Herman is pondering among the "shalls" of whether or not he should > give MI to avoid giving partner UI, it is the "must" of 75D that actually > has the strongest wording of all. Well, we have "must" in L75D1 and "may not in any manner" in L75D2. So we look at the introduction and note that "may becomes very strong in the negative, may not is a stronger injunction than shall not, just short of must not". Indeed we may find that L75D1 is stronger than L75D2. OK, small victory to Hirsh. But there are of course two remarks: L75D1 speaks of the explanation being erroneous or incomplete. It may well be incomplete - but it is certainly not erroneous, as the description fits the hand perfectly. It is like a player describing the weak options of his partner's bid, simply adding "or strong", but not describing in detail what the strong options are. This is incomplete - but it is hardly going to matter - so the player is not under the obligation of L75D1. Secondly, L75D1 speaks of "subsequently". Since the player, at the time of his explanation, already knows that it is "wrong", he cannot "subsequently realize" that he has given MI. I doubt if L75D1 applies to this case. It was intended for something else - and I don't believe you can use it for this one. But a valid argument nevertheless. > He may not give MI without summoning the > TD. Deliberately giving MI to avoid giving UI then becomes pointless, > because partner is going to get the UI shortly thereafter when the TD is > summoned. Since the UI cannot be avoided by MI if partner has given an > incorrect explanation without committing an even more serious violation, he > might as well simply give the correct explanation, summoning the TD if > needed so that the opponents can be provided L16 protection by the TD. That > minimizes the damage to the auction from partner's MI, and has an additional > advantage in simply telling the truth, This is the one I don't like at all. The dWS is "telling the truth" in the sense of correctly describing both partner's intentions and his hand. The information about the real system is "truth" only in a theoretical sense, and since that information is of no use whatsoever to partner, the only information it contains is "partner, you gave a wrong explanation in the previous round". I have given this example before: I bid 4NT, intending it to show the minors, but partner explains it as Blackwood and bids 5Di". Do you agree that opponents are entitled to the knowledge that we play RKCB 1430? So if I now say "diamond preference", am I not giving incomplete information? And when I give the complete information "diamond preference, but if he thinks it's Blackwood, 3 or 0 KC", have I not just simply said "3 or 0, but I wasn't asking for aces (you moron)"? My point is: the "truth" is that he has 3 or 0 KC; the "truth" is that it systemically shows diamonds; and the "truth" is that I am revealing that he has given a mistaken explanation. That first truth is something the opponents must be told, that second truth is of no interest, and that third truth is something I am barred from revealing by L75D2. So the argument that I must speak the "truth" is of no value. Indeed, there is a law that obliges me to hide a particular truth. > rather than making up an agreement to > keep partner in the dark. Telling the truth is a good thing. It appears in > higher Laws than those of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In some form or > another, people have been trying to tell Herman this for at least a dozen > years. > And he has understood it, but not to the point that it is the "highest" obligation, within th Laws of Contract Bridge. > Hirsch Davis > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 9 10:57:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:57:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470B4291.7040807@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > Ficticious story - based on fact ... > > I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and > the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. > > At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of > diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and > LHO pitched the s5. > > All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA > face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No > you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and > faced his spade five. > > After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and > that he in fact has diamonds. > > The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be > corrected. The zonal authority has allowed defenders to ask each > other if they have any cards of the suit led when the do not follow. > Play continues. > > Later the chief director makes a L12A1 ruling that the non-offenders > have not been compensated for the irregularities (both defenders > exposing their cards illegally). And a subsequent L12C2 adjustment. > That adjustment being the most favourable result that was likely had > the irregularity (illegal exposure of quitted cards) not occurred. He > rules that the most favourable result for the non-offenders is that > they would have received a 1-trick penalty for a revoke. > > Comments on this ruling please. > If in your area it is allowed to ask "no diamonds, partner?", then it should also be allowed to give the same information with gestures, faces, remarks, and even the "can I see that one again?". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 9 11:25:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:25:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071009112056.028db9e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:20 9/10/2007 +1300, Wayne Burrows wrote: >F >I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and >the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. > >At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of >diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and >LHO pitched the s5. > >All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA >face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No >you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and >faced his spade five. > >After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and >that he in fact has diamonds. > >The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be >corrected. AG : it is said that a defender, by enquiring about a revoke by partner, establishes the revoke. I would have judged that asking for the trick to be seen is the equivalent to enquiring about the revoke, because it could "awaken" partner. It has been ruled before that several mannerisms, like showing surprise, or asking declarer, are equivalent to illegal enquiring. And PP to West. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 9 11:25:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:25:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071009112056.028db9e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:20 9/10/2007 +1300, Wayne Burrows wrote: >F >I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and >the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. > >At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of >diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and >LHO pitched the s5. > >All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA >face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No >you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and >faced his spade five. > >After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and >that he in fact has diamonds. > >The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be >corrected. AG : it is said that a defender, by enquiring about a revoke by partner, establishes the revoke. I would have judged that asking for the trick to be seen is the equivalent to enquiring about the revoke, because it could "awaken" partner. It has been ruled before that several mannerisms, like showing surprise, or asking declarer, are equivalent to illegal enquiring. And PP to West. Best regards Alain From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Oct 9 14:57:24 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:57:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be><002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty I will interject one or two remarks: > > But there are of course two remarks: L75D1 speaks of the explanation > being erroneous or incomplete. It may well be incomplete - but it is > certainly not erroneous, as the description fits the hand perfectly. There is no obligation in Law whatsoever for any explantion to fit a particular hand, even if the explanation is a true statement of the hand, or what partner's intent was. The obligation in Law is to provide a full and complete explanation of partnership agreements, explicit or implicit. If partner has made a mistake or has psyched, the full and correct explanation of the agreements may have absolutely nothing to do with the actual hand. > It is like a player describing the weak options of his partner's bid, > simply adding "or strong", but not describing in detail what the > strong options are. This is incomplete - but it is hardly going to > matter - so the player is not under the obligation of L75D1. > Secondly, L75D1 speaks of "subsequently". Since the player, at the > time of his explanation, already knows that it is "wrong", he cannot > "subsequently realize" that he has given MI. I doubt if L75D1 applies > to this case. It was intended for something else - and I don't believe > you can use it for this one. But a valid argument nevertheless. > This is pure sophistry. If you know that you have given an incorrect explanation of partnership agreements (the Laws say "subsequently" because they assume that you would not give such an explanation deliberately, which would be among the gravest of offences) you must summon the TD immediately. Now, having given an incorrect explanation, you're searching for ways not to obey a direct imperative in Law. >> He may not give MI without summoning the >> TD. Deliberately giving MI to avoid giving UI then becomes pointless, >> because partner is going to get the UI shortly thereafter when the TD is >> summoned. Since the UI cannot be avoided by MI if partner has given an >> incorrect explanation without committing an even more serious violation, >> he >> might as well simply give the correct explanation, summoning the TD if >> needed so that the opponents can be provided L16 protection by the TD. >> That >> minimizes the damage to the auction from partner's MI, and has an >> additional >> advantage in simply telling the truth, > > This is the one I don't like at all. The dWS is "telling the truth" in > the sense of correctly describing both partner's intentions and his > hand. The information about the real system is "truth" only in a > theoretical sense, and since that information is of no use whatsoever > to partner, the only information it contains is "partner, you gave a > wrong explanation in the previous round". > Again, the opponents are not entitled to know your partner's intentions. The exception would be if you have previous experience with partner deviating from or forgetting a method in your system. Then, it would be appropriate to explain your actual agreement, with a notation that partner has been known to forget this system. They are entitled only to know what your system is. If you alter your explanation to fit partners hand or intent (thereby utilizing the UI created by partner's erroneous explantion), you have not given the opponents the information they are entitled to by Law. > I have given this example before: > I bid 4NT, intending it to show the minors, but partner explains it as > Blackwood and bids 5Di". Do you agree that opponents are entitled to > the knowledge that we play RKCB 1430? So if I now say "diamond > preference", am I not giving incomplete information? And when I give > the complete information "diamond preference, but if he thinks it's > Blackwood, 3 or 0 KC", have I not just simply said "3 or 0, but I > wasn't asking for aces (you moron)"? > Yep, you have just said that. Parter is then under the imperative of L75D1, and the TD will shortly sort it out, get correct explanations on the table, and protect your opponents from the UI. Your opponents are not entitled to know that you play RKCB, but only that you intended to show the minors. If you are correct, you give them the correct explanation of diamond preference. You then explain parter's MI when the auction ends, if you are declarer, or when the hand is over if you wind up defending. They are not entitled to know that you play RKCB, as that is not what the bid shows in your system. You seem to forget the UI goes both ways. Just as you do not like to give UI in explaining partner's calls, you are not allowed to use the UI from partner's misexplanation to either make your own calls or plays, or your own explanations. The explanation of "diamond preference" will alert partner that he must call the TD under 75D1. If it does not trigger such an action by partner, partner has just given you UI that your bid may have been RKCB. In that case, you are the one required to summon the TD, to correct your own MI. If you believe that you have explained your system correctly, you ignore partner's explanations, and continue the bidding as though your explanations were correct, and summon the TD at the appropriate time. Do the same thing you would do if you were playing with screens, and were not able to see partner's explanations at all. > My point is: the "truth" is that he has 3 or 0 KC; the "truth" is that > it systemically shows diamonds; and the "truth" is that I am revealing > that he has given a mistaken explanation. That first truth is > something the opponents must be told, that second truth is of no > interest, and that third truth is something I am barred from revealing > by L75D2. You are not barred by 75D2. You are compelled to provide a complete explanation of your agreements, and to summon the TD immediately if you have not done so. Your opponents need not be told that partner has 0 or 3 kings if that is not your actual agreement. > So the argument that I must speak the "truth" is of no value. Indeed, > there is a law that obliges me to hide a particular truth. > And yet the strongest imperative in Law requires that you summon the TD immediately upon doing so, and in the end, instead of just creating UI for partner, you create MI for the opponents in addition to the UI. Why dig a hole deeper than it has to be? >> rather than making up an agreement to >> keep partner in the dark. Telling the truth is a good thing. It appears >> in >> higher Laws than those of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In some form or >> another, people have been trying to tell Herman this for at least a dozen >> years. >> > > And he has understood it, but not to the point that it is the > "highest" obligation, within th Laws of Contract Bridge. > There are many obligations within the Laws, so that to say any single one is the highest would ignore others that apply in different situations. However, my reading of the relevant Laws leaves me confident that deliberately lying to the opponents and not providing them with the information to which they are entitled by Law is among the gravest of offenses. If the Laws do not say "Thou shalt not bear false witness", it is only because there are higher Laws that do, and there is a presumption of truthfulness when giving an explanation required by Law. When the Laws compel you to give an explanation, I suspect that the Lawmakers did not feel obligated to point out that it had to be a true one simply because the idea that someone would deliberately lie was probably not something that they felt an ethical bridge player would even consider. The Laws cover errors in explanation. They do not cover deliberate MI, because such a thing should not exist in bridge. Hirsch Davis From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 9 17:27:12 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:27:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470B9DD0.9040309@ntlworld.com> [Hisch Davis] OK, I'm foolish enough to try to sum this up. Let's repeat L20 and L75C: L20 "F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). 2. During the Play Period After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions. " L75 "C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." Herman has decided that L73A has primacy, despite many attempts to convince him otherwise: "A. Proper Communication between Partners 1. How Effected Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." L73B may also apply" "B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." So, Herman believes that if partner gives an incorrect explanation of the pair's agreements, then he is required to explain to the opponents what the agreement would have been had partner's explanation been correct, so as not to wake partner up to the actual agreements, thereby effecting an illegal communication. However, he believes that giving a correct explanation of the agreements violates the Laws 73A and B and that his primary duty is to those laws, rather than 75C. So, his L20 explanations will be designed to keep partner asleep to the actual meaning of the auction, rather than giving correct information to the opponents (in those situations where giving correct information would wake up partner). I'm sure that he will correct me if I'm stating his position incorrectly. The essential problem in Herman's point of view is that the Laws do provide recourse for UI provided in the course of giving an explanation. In addition to L16, we also have L73C, which clearly acknowledges that some UI from partner is inevitable: "C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " However, should we adopt Herman's position, and give MI to opponents instead of UI to partner, we also run into L75D. The Laws emphatically do not allow an incorrect explanation (Herman's MI) to stay on the table: "D. Correcting Errors in Explanation 1. Explainer Notices Own Error If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). " Please note that this law uses the word "must", which is the highest priority in the Laws (see Preface). Note also the word "immediately". So, should a player decide that he may not provide UI to partner, but must instead give MI to the opponents, in the interests of L73A and L73B as stated, he must immediately call the Director and inform him of the violation. By use of the word "must", this becomes the highest priority as soon as known MI is present, and overrides the "shalls" in L73. While Herman is pondering among the "shalls" of whether or not he should give MI to avoid giving partner UI, it is the "must" of 75D that actually has the strongest wording of all. He may not give MI without summoning the TD. Deliberately giving MI to avoid giving UI then becomes pointless, because partner is going to get the UI shortly thereafter when the TD is summoned. Since the UI cannot be avoided by MI if partner has given an incorrect explanation without committing an even more serious violation, he might as well simply give the correct explanation, summoning the TD if needed so that the opponents can be provided L16 protection by the TD. That minimizes the damage to the auction from partner's MI, and has an additional advantage in simply telling the truth, rather than making up an agreement to keep partner in the dark. Telling the truth is a good thing. It appears in higher Laws than those of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In some form or another, people have been trying to tell Herman this for at least a dozen years. [nige1] Great stuff. I fear that Hirsch will never persuade Herman but has convinced me. Nevertheless, Herman has done Bridge a service by drawing attention to an unecessarily sophisticated law, phrased in a woolly way. I don't like Herman's solution but he is right that disclosure law should be clarified and simplified -- because in its present form, it is practically unenforceable -- especially against determined truth-economists. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 9 17:48:53 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:48:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470BA2E5.1090407@ntlworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] Fictitious story - based on fact ... I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and LHO pitched the s5. All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and faced his spade five. After a noticeable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and that he in fact has diamonds. The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be corrected. The zonal authority has allowed defenders to ask each other if they have any cards of the suit led when the do not follow. Play continues. Later the chief director makes a L12A1 ruling that the non-offenders have not been compensated for the irregularities (both defenders exposing their cards illegally). And a subsequent L12C2 adjustment. That adjustment being the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity (illegal exposure of quitted cards) not occurred. He rules that the most favourable result for the non-offenders is that they would have received a 1-trick penalty for a revoke. Comments on this ruling please. [nige1] In sensible jurisdictions, a defender is not allowed to draw attention to his partner's revoke. Hence, IMO, the director should judge the revoke to be established and rule accordingly. If either defender is an experienced player, the infraction should incur a procedural penalty. Daft jurisdictions, where defenders are allowed to ask each other about potential revokes, must concoct their own remedies for all the resulting legal infractions. For instance, in such jurisdictions, a defender can *refrain* from asking when he *knows* that partner has no card left in the suit. So whether or not you ask gives count information to partner. As far as I'm aware, use of this unauthorised information is hardly ever penalized. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 9 18:33:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:33:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be><002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470BAD71.9090708@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > I will interject one or two remarks: > >> But there are of course two remarks: L75D1 speaks of the explanation >> being erroneous or incomplete. It may well be incomplete - but it is >> certainly not erroneous, as the description fits the hand perfectly. > > There is no obligation in Law whatsoever for any explantion to fit a > particular hand, even if the explanation is a true statement of the hand, or > what partner's intent was. The obligation in Law is to provide a full and > complete explanation of partnership agreements, explicit or implicit. If > partner has made a mistake or has psyched, the full and correct explanation > of the agreements may have absolutely nothing to do with the actual hand. > Do you really think I don't know that? But do you really think it's a valid response? "how many aces does 5Di he show?" - "diamond preference". There is nothing TRUE about "diamond preference", it has as much bearing on the actual situation as "we lead third/fifth". > >> It is like a player describing the weak options of his partner's bid, >> simply adding "or strong", but not describing in detail what the >> strong options are. This is incomplete - but it is hardly going to >> matter - so the player is not under the obligation of L75D1. >> Secondly, L75D1 speaks of "subsequently". Since the player, at the >> time of his explanation, already knows that it is "wrong", he cannot >> "subsequently realize" that he has given MI. I doubt if L75D1 applies >> to this case. It was intended for something else - and I don't believe >> you can use it for this one. But a valid argument nevertheless. >> > > This is pure sophistry. If you know that you have given an incorrect > explanation of partnership agreements (the Laws say "subsequently" because > they assume that you would not give such an explanation deliberately, which > would be among the gravest of offences) you must summon the TD immediately. > Now, having given an incorrect explanation, you're searching for ways not to > obey a direct imperative in Law. > While trying to obey another direct imperative in Law. We've been here before! Please focus on relative obligations, not on absolute ones! > >>> He may not give MI without summoning the >>> TD. Deliberately giving MI to avoid giving UI then becomes pointless, >>> because partner is going to get the UI shortly thereafter when the TD is >>> summoned. Since the UI cannot be avoided by MI if partner has given an >>> incorrect explanation without committing an even more serious violation, >>> he >>> might as well simply give the correct explanation, summoning the TD if >>> needed so that the opponents can be provided L16 protection by the TD. >>> That >>> minimizes the damage to the auction from partner's MI, and has an >>> additional >>> advantage in simply telling the truth, >> This is the one I don't like at all. The dWS is "telling the truth" in >> the sense of correctly describing both partner's intentions and his >> hand. The information about the real system is "truth" only in a >> theoretical sense, and since that information is of no use whatsoever >> to partner, the only information it contains is "partner, you gave a >> wrong explanation in the previous round". >> > > > Again, the opponents are not entitled to know your partner's intentions. No, but they are entitled to know everything there is to know about our system. And if my partner says "I'm going to show my number of aces", then the question "how many aces does 5Di show after Blackwood?" must be answered. > The exception would be if you have previous experience with partner > deviating from or forgetting a method in your system. Then, it would be > appropriate to explain your actual agreement, with a notation that partner > has been known to forget this system. They are entitled only to know what > your system is. If you alter your explanation to fit partners hand or > intent (thereby utilizing the UI created by partner's erroneous explantion), > you have not given the opponents the information they are entitled to by > Law. > > >> I have given this example before: >> I bid 4NT, intending it to show the minors, but partner explains it as >> Blackwood and bids 5Di". Do you agree that opponents are entitled to >> the knowledge that we play RKCB 1430? So if I now say "diamond >> preference", am I not giving incomplete information? And when I give >> the complete information "diamond preference, but if he thinks it's >> Blackwood, 3 or 0 KC", have I not just simply said "3 or 0, but I >> wasn't asking for aces (you moron)"? >> > > Yep, you have just said that. Parter is then under the imperative of L75D1, > and the TD will shortly sort it out, get correct explanations on the table, > and protect your opponents from the UI. > > Your opponents are not entitled to know that you play RKCB, but only that > you intended to show the minors. If you are correct, you give them the > correct explanation of diamond preference. You then explain parter's MI when > the auction ends, if you are declarer, or when the hand is over if you wind > up defending. They are not entitled to know that you play RKCB, as that is > not what the bid shows in your system. You seem to forget the UI goes both > ways. Just as you do not like to give UI in explaining partner's calls, you > are not allowed to use the UI from partner's misexplanation to either make > your own calls or plays, or your own explanations. WRONG. I am allowed to base actions other than calls or plays on UI. For a start, I am obliged to do so when calling the director before the lead and correct the MI just given. > The explanation of > "diamond preference" will alert partner that he must call the TD under 75D1. The explanation of "diamond preference" is a clear violation of L75D2. Of course the TD will get called. > If it does not trigger such an action by partner, partner has just given you > UI that your bid may have been RKCB. In that case, you are the one required > to summon the TD, to correct your own MI. If you believe that you have > explained your system correctly, you ignore partner's explanations, and > continue the bidding as though your explanations were correct, and summon > the TD at the appropriate time. > By now the TD is already at the table. > Do the same thing you would do if you were playing with screens, and were > not able to see partner's explanations at all. > Of course, but with screens I will not know that partner was intending to show aces, and my explanation that 5Di shows diamonds will not be UI to him as he won't see it. These cases cannot happen with screens. > >> My point is: the "truth" is that he has 3 or 0 KC; the "truth" is that >> it systemically shows diamonds; and the "truth" is that I am revealing >> that he has given a mistaken explanation. That first truth is >> something the opponents must be told, that second truth is of no >> interest, and that third truth is something I am barred from revealing >> by L75D2. > > You are not barred by 75D2. Of course I am barred. Don't spout out sillyness. "in any manner that a mistake has occured" "4NT" - ? - "Blackwood" - 5Di - ? - "diamond preference" is saying in some manner that 4NT was not Blackwood. That is a clear breach of L75D2. > You are compelled to provide a complete > explanation of your agreements, Please stick to the question. I have 2 obligations, which directly counteract. I am trying to find out which is the stronger obligation. Repeating that I have one obligation, while stating that the other obligation does not exist, is no answer to the question. > and to summon the TD immediately if you have > not done so. Your opponents need not be told that partner has 0 or 3 kings > if that is not your actual agreement. > Of course they must be told that. They are entitled to know every detail of our system, even those parts that are (apparently) not in use now. > >> So the argument that I must speak the "truth" is of no value. Indeed, >> there is a law that obliges me to hide a particular truth. >> > > And yet the strongest imperative in Law requires that you summon the TD > immediately upon doing so, and in the end, instead of just creating UI for > partner, you create MI for the opponents in addition to the UI. Why dig a > hole deeper than it has to be? > Again this statement without any base in law: "the strongest imperative". The aim of this thread was to find which of the 2 imperatives is the strongest, not to hear someone repeating unfounded statements! >>> rather than making up an agreement to >>> keep partner in the dark. Telling the truth is a good thing. It appears >>> in >>> higher Laws than those of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In some form or >>> another, people have been trying to tell Herman this for at least a dozen >>> years. >>> >> And he has understood it, but not to the point that it is the >> "highest" obligation, within th Laws of Contract Bridge. >> > > There are many obligations within the Laws, so that to say any single one is > the highest would ignore others that apply in different situations. Exactly. > However, my reading of the relevant Laws leaves me confident that > deliberately lying to the opponents and not providing them with the > information to which they are entitled by Law is among the gravest of > offenses. That is your reading, and you apply that to a case in which the MI causes absolutely no damage? > If the Laws do not say "Thou shalt not bear false witness", it is > only because there are higher Laws that do, and there is a presumption of > truthfulness when giving an explanation required by Law. When the Laws > compel you to give an explanation, I suspect that the Lawmakers did not feel > obligated to point out that it had to be a true one simply because the idea > that someone would deliberately lie was probably not something that they > felt an ethical bridge player would even consider. The Laws cover errors in > explanation. They do not cover deliberate MI, because such a thing should > not exist in bridge. > No, they do not cover it. So it is up to Mr Hirsh Davis to state that they should, and how they should? > Hirsch Davis > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 9 21:00:04 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:00:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710082120w7cf2311ex197b91f4fe8a6b4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c80aa6$9a78dc40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Ficticious story - based on fact ... > > I don't have the exact auction. Hearts were trumps (part-score) and > the defenders had bid and raised diamonds. > > At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of > diamonds). Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and > LHO pitched the s5. > > All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA > face up and said can I see those cards again. Declarer protested "No > you have quit the trick". LHO ignored declarers protestation and > faced his spade five. > > After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and > that he in fact has diamonds. > > The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be > corrected. The zonal authority has allowed defenders to ask each > other if they have any cards of the suit led when the do not follow. > Play continues. > > Later the chief director makes a L12A1 ruling that the non-offenders > have not been compensated for the irregularities (both defenders > exposing their cards illegally). And a subsequent L12C2 adjustment. > That adjustment being the most favourable result that was likely had > the irregularity (illegal exposure of quitted cards) not occurred. He > rules that the most favourable result for the non-offenders is that > they would have received a 1-trick penalty for a revoke. > > Comments on this ruling please. 1: As you refer to a zone where asking partner for a possible revoke is permitted the fact that LHO became aware of his revoke from his partner's manners is irrelevant. 2: The fact that defenders have exposed their last played cards illegally (after they had quitted the trick) is irrelevant as far as correcting the revoke is concerned. Consequently (IMO) the Director should have ruled: The revoke is not established, LHO plays a legal card to the trick and the S5 becomes a major penalty card. In addition the Director should IMO impose a substantial procedural penalty on RHO for violating Law 66 with its consequences, and even more so as declarer had objected and called attention that RHO was about to violate that law. (IMO any Law 12 ruling on this case would be incorrect.) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 9 21:54:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:54:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <4708BA19.3020903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c80aae$45a61a40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>> I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make > >>> no sense to me. > >>> > >>> Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please > clarify. > >>> > >> Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really > >> remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. > >> Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should consider > >> to be an easy 5Di contract? > > > > I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete > auction > > is important. > > > > In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" > > opening bid (opponents pass): > > > > 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in > clubs") > > > > 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) > > > > 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and shows > > additional values in clubs) > > > > 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) > > > > 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades and > > shows additional values in clubs) > > > > (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but > this > > clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) > > > > So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed > > important. > > > > No Sven, it is absolutely not important once you rule that responder > has used UI to stop anywhere below 5Di. How can we rule that the player has used UI without knowing both the auction and the nature of the UI? Maybe you can, I cannot. Sven > And in case that Opener has passed a normally forcing bid by > Responder, you can still rule that it could be using UI to choose any > forcing bid, knowing that partner can always pass it. > In fact, we ruled that a straight reply of 5Di was a LA. > > And so no, the complete actual auction is unimportant to the ruling. > > And I class this once again as - let's argue against Herman, why > should we ever agree with anything he says? > > > Sven > > > > > -- > 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 svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 9 22:03:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:03:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c80aaf$876a14d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I hadn't anticipated to spend any more time on this thread, but I owe Hirsch Davis credit for pointing out the effect of Law 75D: Any player who becomes aware that he has given misinformation to opponents MUST IMMEDIATELY CALL THE DIRECTOR. Further comments should be superfluous. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 8. oktober 2007 14:13 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > In a recent post, Sven clearly indicated what is wrong with the > majority view on the problems regarding the dWS. > > I hope he allows me to quote two sentences - I guarantee they are not > taken out of context: (mail from Sven in the thread with all the s's > from 5/10/2007, 11:09 CET) > > The first sentence is > > "This understanding is obviously ridiculous." > > This sentence shows already clearly why there continues to be this > problem. Sven, and probably many others, believe that their PoV is so > obvious that any other view is ridiculous. > Permit me to say that I find that kind of viewpoints very belittling; > I have a different opinion, so yours is certainly not obvious, and to > categorize my opinions as ridiculous -without reason, because it is > obvious- is a sure sign that the writer has not thought this thing > through. > > Let's then go to the second sentence, which contains a bit more solid > argumentation: > > "Your prime duty is to give a true, complete and correct explanation > of your partnership's agreements, ..." > > I do not question that there exists, in the sport of bridge, a very > important duty, which can quite accurately be described in the words > Sven uses. > I do question however his word "prime". > > There is nothing in the laws that indicate that this very important > duty, has "prime" importance. > Surely Sven will recognize that there exists another very important > duty, namely not to hand out UI to partner. > The problem that the dWS addresses is which of these two duties has > primacy. > > Sven states that not giving MI is the "prime" duty, but he asserts > this without giving any evidence to support this. It is "obvious". > > Well, I don't believe it's obvious. I don't want to state that it's > clearly wrong, as there is not very much evidence in the other sense > either. I believe it is wrong however, but I am willing to concede > that it may be right. > > But stating that it's obvious brings us no further in the discussion. > > Does anyone want to get the ball rolling in trying to prove primacy > for one duty or the other? I think I have stated some arguments > already, so I leave the floor to others first. > > -- > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 01:25:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:25:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Anna Gudge, Shanghai blog, Tuesday 9th October 2007: http://ecatsbridge.blogspot.com/ There isn't a lot to say about today - it has been reasonably quiet, giving me a chance to work on the new Laws documentation and ensure that it is all in order - the final printouts are being done for proof reading, so I have had a chance to concentrate on that. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Oct 10 02:37:23 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:37:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be><002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470BAD71.9090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c80ad5$b9c2ead0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> > > Do you really think I don't know that? Herman, I have absolutely no idea what you know and what you don't. In some areas of Law you appear well-versed, in others you write as though you had never opened the law book. > But do you really think it's a valid response? > "how many aces does 5Di he show?" - "diamond preference". > There is nothing TRUE about "diamond preference", it has as much > bearing on the actual situation as "we lead third/fifth". > No. If your call was intended as asking for minor suit preference, then systemically 5D shows a diamond preference. That is the information that you are required to provide to the opponents. Hence, I really do have no idea what you know. Note that so saying puts your partner under a L16 obligation. >> >>> It is like a player describing the weak options of his partner's bid, >>> simply adding "or strong", but not describing in detail what the >>> strong options are. This is incomplete - but it is hardly going to >>> matter - so the player is not under the obligation of L75D1. >>> Secondly, L75D1 speaks of "subsequently". Since the player, at the >>> time of his explanation, already knows that it is "wrong", he cannot >>> "subsequently realize" that he has given MI. I doubt if L75D1 applies >>> to this case. It was intended for something else - and I don't believe >>> you can use it for this one. But a valid argument nevertheless. >>> >> >> >> Again, the opponents are not entitled to know your partner's intentions. > > No, but they are entitled to know everything there is to know about > our system. And if my partner says "I'm going to show my number of > aces", then the question "how many aces does 5Di show after > Blackwood?" must be answered. > No. Now you're using UI. Partner's Blackwood explanation has told you how he is playing the system, which is not the way you are playing it. Just as you're trying not to wake partner up, you can't allow UI to wake you up either (he may be right, after all). You're playing it for minor suit preference. His call systemically means diamond preference. Explain it correctly. > >> >>> My point is: the "truth" is that he has 3 or 0 KC; the "truth" is that >>> it systemically shows diamonds; and the "truth" is that I am revealing >>> that he has given a mistaken explanation. That first truth is >>> something the opponents must be told, that second truth is of no >>> interest, and that third truth is something I am barred from revealing >>> by L75D2. >> You are missing something very fundamental about explanations. They are communications to your opponents, not your partner. Presumeably, you're partner is sufficiently well-versed in Law and ethics so that he will understand that he is under an L16 obligation not to allow your explanation to wake him up. If partner does wakes up and utilize your explanation, he's not anybody an ethical player would want as a partner anyway. >> The Laws cover errors in >> explanation. They do not cover deliberate MI, because such a thing should >>not exist in bridge. > No, they do not cover it. So it is up to Mr Hirsh Davis to state that > they should, and how they should? > Actually, I don't think that there is any reason for the Laws to cover deliberate MI. A quote from the Preface of the 1927 Laws of Auction Bridge (Whist Club, NY) seems somehow appropriate: "Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practice; that they cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the laws is to define the correct procedure and to provide for the situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage." Let's make it as simple as possible: Unintentional MI is an error that is covered under the Laws. Intentional MI is cheating. Intentional MI falls within the scope of Conduct and Ethics committees. The punishment should be far more severe than is possible under the Laws of the game, which are not, and never were, written to deal with intentional violations. Yes, following correct procedure under the Laws will sometimes force you to give your partner UI, which is also a Law violation. So what? Is it some kind of shocker to you that the Laws aren't perfect? You've still got to follow correct procedure and let the TD deal with the fallout. You cannot unilaterally alter the procedures defined in the Laws (L20F, L40) and pretend that you're still playing bridge. I see no reason to continue this discussion. I believe that you were never looking for a discussion of Law, but rather some sort of vindication for your pet violation. Hirsch Davis From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 03:06:25 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs East dealer Both vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1H 2D 3H(1) Pass Pass Pass(2) ? (1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation alert regulation required other meanings for 3H to be alerted. (2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the Director before the opening lead to advise that 3H should have been alerted, since the North- South partnership understanding was that 3H showed a pre-emptive raise. As required by Law 21B1, the Director permitted West to retract their Pass and substitute another call. You, West, hold: Q852 T4 AKQ864 A What call do you substitute? What other calls do you consider substituting? * * * It is interesting that none of the blmlers polled opted for the wimpy, wimpy, wimpy rebid of 4D, instead opting to keep game in spades in sight by rebidding 3S or Double. * * * New Orleans 1995, Case Ten Stratified Pairs Flight B/C/D 96 J975 T752 T64 Q852 KJ74 T4 Q8 AKQ864 J9 A QJ752 AT3 AK632 3 K983 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1H 2D 3H(1) Pass Pass Pass(2) 4D Pass Pass Pass (1) See above (2) See above Result: 4D made four, +130 for East-West. Facts: South failed to Alert the 3H bid was preemptive. The auction ended at 3H and North announced the failure to Alert before the opening lead. East and West were taken aside individually by the Director and asked if they would have taken any action with the correct information. East indicated he would have considered action if the 3H bid had been Alerted but he was not specific. West was given the opportunity to bid and she elected to bid 4D. East-West discovered after the hand had been played that they could have made 4S. Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that the best result likely for East-West was 4S made four. The contract was changed to 4S made four, +620 for East-West. Committee Decision: The Committee examined East- West's convention card and discovered that they did not play responsive doubles. The convention card indicated they did not play responsive doubles. The convention card indicated they did make sound overcalls. West was asked by the Committee what she would have done if her partner had doubled. She was adamant that she would not have sat for the double and would have bid 4D. The Director told the Committee that East indicated that he would have bid if 3H had been Alerted, but he was not specific about what that bid might have been. The Committee considered the result for each side. Law 12C2 reads as follows: [snip] The Laws Commission has discussed that "likely" is one chance in three and "probable" is one chance in six. The Committee first considered the most unfavourable result that was at all probable for North-South, the offending side. The Committee decided that East might have bid 3S at least one time in six. The contract was changed to 4S made four, -620 for North-South. The Committee now considered the result for East- West at length. The Committee believed that West was inexperienced (about 250 masterpoints) but still should have reopened with 3S or doubled. If East rebid 4C, West could have corrected to 4D. The Committee also decided that East (600 masterpoints) should have deduced that something was wrong with the auction. South opened the bidding, West overcalled (they stated that they played very sound overcalls), and North bid 3H. East had 10 HCP and he might have examined South's convention card or asked a question about 3H. The Committee believed that 3S was the only bid East could have made to get the partnership to 4S. The Committee did not believe that this met the one chance in three guidelines. The Committee awarded East-West the table result, +130 or average-plus which ever was greater. The Committee commended North for meeting his ethical responsibility to inform the opponents about the failure to Alert before the opening lead was made. Committee Chairperson: Alan LeBendig Committee Members: John Blubaugh and Ed Lazarus * * * Michael Rosenberg, casebook panellist: I really don't approve of this practice of pulling players away from the table and asking them what they would have done. Sooner or later, the bridge population will figure out to always answer, "yes, I would or might have bid or doubled or done something other than what I actually did. These matters should be considered by the Director or the Committee if necessary. Since responsive doubles were not being played, East was stuck. In my opinion, East would have bid 3S shortly after Hell froze over, but I guess that was a judgment call. East-West's bad result came *subsequent* to the infraction, but came as a *consequence* of not playing responsive doubles, and West not knowing enough to double 3H. 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 Wed Oct 10 05:09:59 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:09:59 +0800 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001101c80aaf$876a14d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <001101c80aaf$876a14d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> [SP] I hadn't anticipated to spend any more time on this thread, but I owe Hirsch Davis credit for pointing out the effect of Law 75D: Any player who becomes aware that he has given misinformation to opponents MUST IMMEDIATELY CALL THE DIRECTOR. Further comments should be superfluous. [DALB] A superfluous comment follows. If the auction (in a jurisdiction where calls above 3NT are alertable) contains West: 4NT. East: Alert. North: Please explain. East: Blackwood. North: Pass. East: Five diamonds. West: Alert. South: Please explain. West: Diamond preference. all that is known is that someone has given misinformation to the opponents, but it may well be the case that neither West nor East knows that he is the guilty party. Law 75D does not help in this situation, nor is it clear that the director could assist in any way if summoned to the table. Still, the remaining laws are perfectly clear. East and West must proceed as though they had not heard either the questions asked or the answers given. It is not for a player to be concerned with giving UI to partner in answering a question from an opponent - the proper course of action is to assume that partner has been struck temporarily deaf while the question is being asked and the answer is being given. I have been away from this list for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth about your partner's hand. You are not. David Burn London, England From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 10 05:24:22 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:24:22 +0900 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> Message-ID: <200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> David Burn writes: >I have been away from this list >for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect >that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth about >your partner's hand. You are not. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 10 05:43:00 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:43:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice Message-ID: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> Please assume, for argument's sake, the following are agreed facts: Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. ............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 ............. H: T 7 4 ............. D: K ..............C: K 5 2 S: A 3 ............D..........S - H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 ............. S: K T 9 5 4 ............. H: J 8 3 ............. D: T 8 5 ............. C: Q 7 _W _N _E _S -- 3S _P 4S .P _P 5D We were North-South, playing against two charming ladies. South thought for some time before bidding 4S. West thought for some time before passing 4S. South (my partner) reserved his rights and called the director when 5D made. East argued that she would bid 5D without any hesitation. Other players opined that 90% of the room would double or bid 4N on the East hand. I was North. I agreed that many Easts would double or bid 4N but this East chose neither option. For her, the choice seemed to be between Pass and 5D. I argued, *given that choice*, nearly half the room would pass. The director, a friend and a fair man, ruled for our opponents. Does my argument make logical sense? Does such an argument have any legal validity? Anyway, how would you rule? :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 06:01:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:01:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >Anyway, how would you rule? :) Richard Hills: As Director, before ruling on what East's logical alternatives were, I would first conduct a double-blind poll of East's peers. As Nigel has already noted, it would be difficult for me to find a peer of such an idiosyncratic bidder as the peerlessly charming lady sitting East. ;-) 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 Oct 10 07:14:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:14:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: [big snip] >I cannot bring myself to read all the learned contributions >on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect >that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to >lie to your opponents about your methods for the sake of >telling them the truth about your partner's hand. You are >not. Richard Hills: I have practical experience analysing "mad notions", since I have spent considerable portions of my adult life residing in psychiatric wards of hospitals. The difference between "science" and "creation science" is that it is possible to falsify a scientific theory, but it is not possible to falsify a theory which says, "God specially created the world in 4004 BC, including a special creation of the fossil record". ;-) Likewise, Herman agrees that a number of his De Wael School actions are directly contrary to Law, but the De Wael School is not thus falsified since Herman has the special argument that the Lawbook is specially created to be specially self- contradictory. So Herman argues that in De Wael School situations all actions are contrary to his idiosyncratic interpretation of Law. Therefore it is not only polemically correct to dismiss the De Wael School philosophy as a "mad notion", it is also technically correct to describe the De Wael School philosophy as a "mad notion", since not only does the De Wael School philosophy fail to correspond to reality, but also the De Wael School philosophy can never be refuted by reality. Standard Disclaimer: Merely because the De Wael School philosophy is mad does _not_ mean that I am arguing that Herman De Wael himself is mad, bad or dangerous to know. 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 Oct 11 00:42:45 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:42:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002401c80ad5$b9c2ead0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470BAD71.9090708@skynet.be> <002401c80ad5$b9c2ead0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071010153930.03680cd8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Hirsch: >I see no reason to continue this discussion. I believe that you were never >looking for a discussion of Law, but rather some sort of vindication for >your pet violation. Let us fervently hope that the new lawbook arrives soon, and will not provide ammunition for another 10 years of fruitless argumentation, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 09:01:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:01:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071010153930.03680cd8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Let us fervently hope that the new lawbook arrives soon, Aslan: "I call all times soon." Tony Musgrove: >and will not provide ammunition for another 10 years of >fruitless argumentation, Elrond: "Fruitless did I call the victory of the Last Alliance? Not wholly so, yet it did not achieve its end. Sauron was diminished, but not destroyed. His Ring was lost but not unmade. The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed; for they were made with the power of the Ring, and while it remains they will endure." ;-) Richard Hills: Standard Disclaimer: Merely because the De Wael School philosophy is being compared by analogy to the Dark Tower, and because the foundational reasoning underlying the De Wael School is being compared by analogy to the One Ring, does _not_ mean that I am arguing that Herman De Wael himself has an actual Lidless Eye. ;-) 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 Oct 9 11:19:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:19:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:39 8/10/2007 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: >Herman has decided that L73A has primacy, despite many attempts to convince >him otherwise: You're plain wrong in your interpretation. Herman has stated that when two laws contradict eachother, there is no a priori primacy and it's the right -or perhaps duty- of every citizen to try and minimize the incovenience it will cause to him and others. He also stated that in his opinion MI was often less of an inconvenience than UI was. You might disagree with the second bit, but the first can't be wrong. This principle, too, is used at higher levels than bridge laws. One case we had in Belgium was at a road crossing with a stop signal and a line to avoid cars approaching the transversal road when stopping ; but if doing so, you couldn't see vehicles coming down this road and therefore could never cross. The Court said the driver who bypasses the line, because there is less danger in doing so than in refusing to see vehicles coming, is right. BTW, in 2006, it was the matter of a question in an exam of Law in 2nd year at our university, and those who said "one law must be given some primacy" got 1 out of 7 possible points because the question was "what do you do when there isn't ?", not "what is best" ?" We all agree that it would be better to have primacies explicitly written. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071009/0d324d04/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 10:15:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:15:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <001001c80aae$45a61a40$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c80aae$45a61a40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470C8A1D.7030305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ........... >>>>> I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction make >>>>> no sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please >> clarify. >>>> Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really >>>> remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. >>>> Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should consider >>>> to be an easy 5Di contract? >>> I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete >> auction >>> is important. >>> >>> In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" >>> opening bid (opponents pass): >>> >>> 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in >> clubs") >>> 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) >>> >>> 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and shows >>> additional values in clubs) >>> >>> 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) >>> >>> 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades and >>> shows additional values in clubs) >>> >>> (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but >> this >>> clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) >>> >>> So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed >>> important. >>> >> No Sven, it is absolutely not important once you rule that responder >> has used UI to stop anywhere below 5Di. > > How can we rule that the player has used UI without knowing both the auction > and the nature of the UI? > > Maybe you can, I cannot. > Well, we do know the UI: 2Di was explained as strong and corrected! And we do know the auction: 2Di pass At this point, we can rule (if we want) that any bid other than 5Di is making use of UI. So we can rule! Just for the record, I do admit that fuller information ought to be given, but I cannot give what I don't have. And since this case was given as an example which was asked for, I I humbly request that you accept the example as it is, and comment on the information available. So Sven, do you accept that the ruling makes sense? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 10 10:16:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice In-Reply-To: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010100817.028322b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:43 10/10/2007 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >Please assume, for argument's sake, the following are agreed facts: >Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. >............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 >............. H: T 7 4 >............. D: K >..............C: K 5 2 >S: A 3 ............D..........S - >H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 >D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 >C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 >............. S: K T 9 5 4 >............. H: J 8 3 >............. D: T 8 5 >............. C: Q 7 >_W _N _E _S >-- 3S _P 4S >.P _P 5D >We were North-South, playing against two charming ladies. >South thought for some time before bidding 4S. >West thought for some time before passing 4S. >South (my partner) reserved his rights and called the director when 5D >made. East argued that she would bid 5D without any hesitation. >Other players opined that 90% of the room would double or bid 4N on >the East hand. AG : IMNSHO, stating that 90% of the players who didn't bid over 3S would bid over 4S is wrong. If you don't dare to bid 4D, would you automatically bid 5 ? Of course, you might find it difficult to find anybody who would pass over 3S, but that's another story. However, this isn't the main point. Saying that East's bid was influenced by the tempo of West's pass is wrong. Apart from the fact that West didn't hold anything interesting, and therefore didn't transmit any information about her hand (but I've been told this isn't essential), there are two important considerations : 1. A slight tempo in such a situation is less telling than no tempo at all. High non-jump bids create the same sort of problems than skip bids. 2. Even if West's tempo was abnormal, little can be deduced from it. Seeing East's hand, I might imagine West thought about doubling. In such a case, bidding 5D would be wrong. Whence the 5D bid is not a consequence of the tempo. Unless, of course, you unilaterally decide that LYL never double and the tempo must mean something else. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 10 10:16:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice In-Reply-To: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010100817.028322b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:43 10/10/2007 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >Please assume, for argument's sake, the following are agreed facts: >Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. >............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 >............. H: T 7 4 >............. D: K >..............C: K 5 2 >S: A 3 ............D..........S - >H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 >D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 >C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 >............. S: K T 9 5 4 >............. H: J 8 3 >............. D: T 8 5 >............. C: Q 7 >_W _N _E _S >-- 3S _P 4S >.P _P 5D >We were North-South, playing against two charming ladies. >South thought for some time before bidding 4S. >West thought for some time before passing 4S. >South (my partner) reserved his rights and called the director when 5D >made. East argued that she would bid 5D without any hesitation. >Other players opined that 90% of the room would double or bid 4N on >the East hand. AG : IMNSHO, stating that 90% of the players who didn't bid over 3S would bid over 4S is wrong. If you don't dare to bid 4D, would you automatically bid 5 ? Of course, you might find it difficult to find anybody who would pass over 3S, but that's another story. However, this isn't the main point. Saying that East's bid was influenced by the tempo of West's pass is wrong. Apart from the fact that West didn't hold anything interesting, and therefore didn't transmit any information about her hand (but I've been told this isn't essential), there are two important considerations : 1. A slight tempo in such a situation is less telling than no tempo at all. High non-jump bids create the same sort of problems than skip bids. 2. Even if West's tempo was abnormal, little can be deduced from it. Seeing East's hand, I might imagine West thought about doubling. In such a case, bidding 5D would be wrong. Whence the 5D bid is not a consequence of the tempo. Unless, of course, you unilaterally decide that LYL never double and the tempo must mean something else. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 10:25:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:25:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002401c80ad5$b9c2ead0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be><002301c80a15$317855e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><470B420D.8080706@skynet.be> <001c01c80a73$f052bc90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470BAD71.9090708@skynet.be> <002401c80ad5$b9c2ead0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470C8C6C.6030805@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Do you really think I don't know that? > > Herman, > > I have absolutely no idea what you know and what you don't. In some areas of > Law you appear well-versed, in others you write as though you had never > opened the law book. > Well, if you believe that, you are really not listening to this debate, are you not? > >> But do you really think it's a valid response? >> "how many aces does 5Di he show?" - "diamond preference". >> There is nothing TRUE about "diamond preference", it has as much >> bearing on the actual situation as "we lead third/fifth". >> > > No. If your call was intended as asking for minor suit preference, then > systemically 5D shows a diamond preference. That is the information that > you are required to provide to the opponents. Hence, I really do have no > idea what you know. Note that so saying puts your partner under a L16 > obligation. > Of course, and my bids will be based on him having shown diamond preference! But if I also tell him this, his next bid will be influenced by L16 and he may not be able to use the fact that my bid makes no sense in his system (although not chosen so as not to make sense, of course) in landing on his feet. By giving UI myself too, I have landed my partnership in a quagmire we may not get out of before 7NT. >>>> It is like a player describing the weak options of his partner's bid, >>>> simply adding "or strong", but not describing in detail what the >>>> strong options are. This is incomplete - but it is hardly going to >>>> matter - so the player is not under the obligation of L75D1. >>>> Secondly, L75D1 speaks of "subsequently". Since the player, at the >>>> time of his explanation, already knows that it is "wrong", he cannot >>>> "subsequently realize" that he has given MI. I doubt if L75D1 applies >>>> to this case. It was intended for something else - and I don't believe >>>> you can use it for this one. But a valid argument nevertheless. >>>> > >>> Again, the opponents are not entitled to know your partner's intentions. >> No, but they are entitled to know everything there is to know about >> our system. And if my partner says "I'm going to show my number of >> aces", then the question "how many aces does 5Di show after >> Blackwood?" must be answered. >> > > No. Now you're using UI. Partner's Blackwood explanation has told you how > he is playing the system, which is not the way you are playing it. Just as > you're trying not to wake partner up, you can't allow UI to wake you up > either (he may be right, after all). You're playing it for minor suit > preference. His call systemically means diamond preference. Explain it > correctly. NO NO NO NO NO I am not barred by L16 in explaining it as aces. That is not use of UI. If you keep using that as an argument, then stop, because it is simply NOT TRUE. L16 speaks of basing calls and plays on AI, it is not of application on explanations. > > You are missing something very fundamental about explanations. They are > communications to your opponents, not your partner. Presumeably, you're > partner is sufficiently well-versed in Law and ethics so that he will > understand that he is under an L16 obligation not to allow your explanation > to wake him up. If partner does wakes up and utilize your explanation, he's > not anybody an ethical player would want as a partner anyway. > But you are also missing something very fundamental about explanations. Explanations are there to help opponents, not to hinder them. If they ask about 5Di, and I start my explanation with, we play third/fifth leads, they are rightly annoyed by my unhelpfulness. Similarly, if I explain that partner shows diamond preference, they will not be amused. They already know that he has not shown any preference, and my telling them he has will only confuse them. Furthermore, if I don't tell them he has shown 1 ace, I am withholding information they do want, need, and are entitled to. So your insistence on saying "diamond preference" is just a hidden way of getting round L75D2 and finding other words of saying "moron partner, that was not Blackwood". >>> The Laws cover errors in >>> explanation. They do not cover deliberate MI, because such a thing should >>> not exist in bridge. > >> No, they do not cover it. So it is up to Mr Hirsh Davis to state that >> they should, and how they should? >> > > Actually, I don't think that there is any reason for the Laws to cover > deliberate MI. > > A quote from the Preface of the 1927 Laws of Auction Bridge (Whist Club, NY) > seems somehow appropriate: > > "Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practice; that they cannot > accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the > laws is to define the correct procedure and to provide for the situations > which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but > nevertheless an unfair advantage." > > Let's make it as simple as possible: > Unintentional MI is an error that is covered under the Laws. > Intentional MI is cheating. > > Intentional MI falls within the scope of Conduct and Ethics committees. The > punishment should be far more severe than is possible under the Laws of the > game, which are not, and never were, written to deal with intentional > violations. > > Yes, following correct procedure under the Laws will sometimes force you to > give your partner UI, which is also a Law violation. So what? Is it some > kind of shocker to you that the Laws aren't perfect? You've still got to > follow correct procedure and let the TD deal with the fallout. You cannot > unilaterally alter the procedures defined in the Laws (L20F, L40) and > pretend that you're still playing bridge. > > I see no reason to continue this discussion. I believe that you were never > looking for a discussion of Law, but rather some sort of vindication for > your pet violation. > No, I regard this as a very important discussion on law, and certainly not as a violation. > Hirsch Davis > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 10 10:29:06 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:29:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c80b17$9f7f42d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .......... You're plain wrong in your interpretation. Herman has stated that when two laws contradict each other, there is no a priori primacy and it's the right -or perhaps duty- of every citizen to try and minimize the inconvenience it will cause to him and others. He also stated that in his opinion MI was often less of an inconvenience than UI was. ----------- Can we not once and for all settle this discussion recognizing Hirsch's commendable observation of Law 75D which, although not explicitly forbidding deliberate misinformation being given to opponents, clearly states that a player who realizes that he has given such misinformation "MUST IMMEDIATELY call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)". This law makes the question of primacy once MI is involved completely irrelevant. I only wish I myself had been alert enough to remember Law 75D during the previous discussions. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 10:30:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:30:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <001101c80aaf$876a14d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> Message-ID: <470C8DAA.20709@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SP] > > I hadn't anticipated to spend any more time on this thread, but I owe Hirsch > Davis credit for pointing out the effect of Law 75D: > > Any player who becomes aware that he has given misinformation to opponents > MUST IMMEDIATELY CALL THE DIRECTOR. > > Further comments should be superfluous. > > [DALB] > > A superfluous comment follows. > > If the auction (in a jurisdiction where calls above 3NT are alertable) > contains > > West: 4NT. > East: Alert. > North: Please explain. > East: Blackwood. > North: Pass. > East: Five diamonds. > West: Alert. > South: Please explain. > West: Diamond preference. > > all that is known is that someone has given misinformation to the opponents, > but it may well be the case that neither West nor East knows that he is the > guilty party. Law 75D does not help in this situation, nor is it clear that > the director could assist in any way if summoned to the table. > A fine analysis, David, with one problem. No, we don't know who has given MI, but we do know who has given UI: both of them! By giving UI as well, the first bidder has now made certain that his partner may not recover either. He might be in a better situation if he does not give UI, makes a call which is normal within his own system, and hope partner wakes up. And no, form among normal bids in his own system, he is not allowed to chose the one which is more likely to wake up his partner. But if partner does wake up, at least it won't be because of the UI, and the TD will not need to find the worst possible score (obviously 7NTXX-?) > Still, the remaining laws are perfectly clear. East and West must proceed as > though they had not heard either the questions asked or the answers given. > It is not for a player to be concerned with giving UI to partner in > answering a question from an opponent - the proper course of action is to > assume that partner has been struck temporarily deaf while the question is > being asked and the answer is being given. I have been away from this list > for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned > contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect > that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your > opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth about > your partner's hand. You are not. > And since it is DB who has stated this, that must be the truth. Sorry David, but I can state equally strongly: You are. I hope you will not let it come to a drinking match to settle the issue. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 10:31:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:31:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com> <200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > David Burn writes: >> I have been away from this list >> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect >> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth about >> your partner's hand. You are not. > > Amen. Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 10 10:32:44 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice In-Reply-To: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> References: <470C4A44.5050200@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <470C8E2C.6080506@ntlworld.com> I've done it again. Sorry! I missed out a bid. East DOUBLED 3D. Corrected below. Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. ............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 ............. H: T 7 4 ............. D: K ..............C: K 5 2 S: A 3 ............D..........S - H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 ............. S: K T 9 5 4 ............. H: J 8 3 ............. D: T 8 5 ............. C: Q 7 _W _N _E _S -- 3S _X 4S .P _P 5D We were North-South, playing against two charming ladies. South thought for some time before bidding 4S. West thought for some time before passing 4S. South (my partner) reserved his rights and called the director when 5D made. East argued that she would bid 5D without any hesitation. Other players opined that 90% of the room would double or bid 4N on the East hand. I was North. I agreed that many Easts would double or bid 4N but this East chose neither option. For her, the choice seemed to be between Pass and 5D. I argued, *given that choice*, nearly half the room would pass. The director, a friend and a fair man, ruled for our opponents. Does my argument make logical sense? Does such an argument have any legal validity? Anyway, how would you rule? :) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 10:43:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:43:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470C90B0.4070809@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > > [big snip] > >> I cannot bring myself to read all the learned contributions >> on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly recollect >> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to >> lie to your opponents about your methods for the sake of >> telling them the truth about your partner's hand. You are >> not. > > Richard Hills: > > I have practical experience analysing "mad notions", since I > have spent considerable portions of my adult life residing in > psychiatric wards of hospitals. > > The difference between "science" and "creation science" is > that it is possible to falsify a scientific theory, but it is > not possible to falsify a theory which says, "God specially > created the world in 4004 BC, including a special creation of > the fossil record". > > ;-) > > Likewise, Herman agrees that a number of his De Wael School > actions are directly contrary to Law, but the De Wael School > is not thus falsified since Herman has the special argument > that the Lawbook is specially created to be specially self- > contradictory. > No, the Lawbook is not so created. In fact, when you analyse the Lawbook, you reach the conclusion that from two equally illegal options, the dWS option ought to be favoured. But we are not yet so far. The symmetry is not there. Yes Herman De Wael agrees that the dWS options are illegal. And yes, that does not matter since there are internal inconsistencies in the lawbook. The problem is with the proponents of the MS: They claim that: a) the lawbook has no internal inconsistencies b) the dWS actions are illegal and they conclude therefore: the MS are legal They forget that: c) the MS actions are illegal a') the lawbook does have internal inconsistencies from which one should conclude that: 1) both the actions of the dWS and MS are illegal 2) there are no other actions possible 3) therefore, the lawbook has internal inconsistencies 4) therefore, both the actions of the dWS and MS are acceptable. You all seem to believe that I think the dWS actions are the only acceptable ones, or even that I think they are legal. I do not believe that. I believe that the laws do not help the player out of his dilemma, and that therefore both actions are acceptable. I do believe in addition that the dWS are better for the player, and indeed for bridge as a whole. But that is a discussion I seem not to get around to, because you still focus on my illegality. I wish we could move on from there. I wish BTW that you try to analyse the arguments that you have for being able to assert that the MS actions are legal. How do you explain that you can break L75D2 so routinely, and that you don't even see this as a problem. If you read into L75D2 some exception that is not there, is it not also allowed for others (your humble servant, for one) to read into other laws exceptions? > So Herman argues that in De Wael School situations all > actions are contrary to his idiosyncratic interpretation of > Law. > Richard : Why do you always have to inject subjective and inflammatory adjectives into otherwise sensible sentences? > Therefore it is not only polemically correct to dismiss the > De Wael School philosophy as a "mad notion", it is also > technically correct to describe the De Wael School > philosophy as a "mad notion", since not only does the De > Wael School philosophy fail to correspond to reality, but > also the De Wael School philosophy can never be refuted by > reality. > .... > Standard Disclaimer: Merely because the De Wael School > philosophy is mad does _not_ mean that I am arguing that > Herman De Wael himself is mad, bad or dangerous to know. > Well, you come damn close to it. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 10 11:30:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:30:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Unusual choice Message-ID: In a message dated 10/10/2007 09:33:00 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. ............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 ............. H: T 7 4 ............. D: K ..............C: K 5 2 S: A 3 ............D..........S - H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 ............. S: K T 9 5 4 ............. H: J 8 3 ............. D: T 8 5 ............. C: Q 7 _W _N _E _S -- 3S _X 4S .P _P 5D I think the point here is that the world and his dog are bidding something over 4S. East has a duty not to select from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation over 4S. As pass is not an LA, East has to bid something. The most likely thing partner may have been thinking of doing is doubling, but it could have been bidding 4NT or bidding at the five level. Therefore 5D is not suggested in any way (it is not the director's duty to judge the bridge merit of the bid, or the better alternatives 4NT and double, only to decide whether they are suggested by the UI) and the result stands. IMHO. Sounds like you wanted to have your cake and eat it as well. 4SX was a routine -500; and 5 clubs (after 4NT - (P) - 5C) was the same -420. What better result did you think you might get? From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 12:03:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:03:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000701c80b17$9f7f42d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c80b17$9f7f42d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470CA37B.70704@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > .......... > You're plain wrong in your interpretation. > Herman has stated that when two laws contradict each other, there is no a > priori primacy and it's the right -or perhaps duty- of every citizen to try > and minimize the inconvenience it will cause to him and others. He also > stated that in his opinion MI was often less of an inconvenience than UI > was. > ----------- > Can we not once and for all settle this discussion recognizing Hirsch's > commendable observation of Law 75D which, although not explicitly forbidding > deliberate misinformation being given to opponents, clearly states that a > player who realizes that he has given such misinformation "MUST IMMEDIATELY > call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)". > > This law makes the question of primacy once MI is involved completely > irrelevant. > > I only wish I myself had been alert enough to remember Law 75D during the > previous discussions. > Except for the word "subsequently", that argument is indeed a good one. But it does not settle the argument at all. Since it is our opinion that anything which breaks L75D2 is to be avoided, we have no other solution but breaking L75D1 (in your interpretation) as well. Hirsh's observation is the only one so far which tried to settle the discussion on the primacy of the obligations. Your comment, Sven, again tries to settle the legality of the dWS. There is no debate about legality. The dWS actions are illegal. Nothing to discuss about that. But that illegality cannot be used to prove the legality of the MS. It would be better if you accepted the use of the word "accebtability" for both schools. The MS is acceptable, I agree, since the breaking of L75D2 is accepted because of the wish of not giving MI. But it is wrong to conclude from this acceptability that the MS actions are also legal. They remain illegal, because of the breaking of L75D2, and because of the giving of UI to partner. And if the illegality of both options implies the acceptability of one option, then it must logically also imply the acceptability of the other option. And that is what I would like you to admit, Sven (and others): that both schools advocate actions which are illegal but nevertheless acceptable. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 10 12:07:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:07:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <470C8A1D.7030305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c80b25$6a56fb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> ........... > >>>>> I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction > make > >>>>> no sense to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please > >> clarify. > >>>> Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really > >>>> remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. > >>>> Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should > consider > >>>> to be an easy 5Di contract? > >>> I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete > >> auction > >>> is important. > >>> > >>> In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" > >>> opening bid (opponents pass): > >>> > >>> 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in > >> clubs") > >>> 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) > >>> > >>> 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and > shows > >>> additional values in clubs) > >>> > >>> 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) > >>> > >>> 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades > and > >>> shows additional values in clubs) > >>> > >>> (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but > >> this > >>> clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) > >>> > >>> So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed > >>> important. > >>> > >> No Sven, it is absolutely not important once you rule that responder > >> has used UI to stop anywhere below 5Di. > > > > How can we rule that the player has used UI without knowing both the > auction > > and the nature of the UI? > > > > Maybe you can, I cannot. > > > > Well, we do know the UI: 2Di was explained as strong and corrected! > And we do know the auction: > > 2Di pass > > At this point, we can rule (if we want) that any bid other than 5Di is > making use of UI. So we can rule! > So Sven, do you accept that the ruling makes sense? Absolutely not! I must assume that the pass listed above was by opener's LHO or opener would not have had another call, so the first question is what opener's partner should now bid. 5Di is definitely the one bid that is utterly ridiculous against a strong (unlimited?) opening bid in 2Di. Why should he jump directly to game and possibly miss a cold slam? He should make every effort to decide how high and in what denomination they should eventually play. I understand that at the table they ended in 3C so from my understanding of multi I must assume that he chose 3C as his first step towards game or maybe even slam. That bid is fair enough (of course depending on his hand). Now let us turn back to the opener. As I have said before I would understand a 3C response to my 2Di multi opening bid as a message to "forget about your (weak) major suit, we shall play in my suit" which in this case is clubs. So unless I have the 20-21 NT opening bid I have an almost obvious pass. And that's it! No use of UI in this scenario. Another route to 3C is if responder bids 2NT which the opener understands as asking for precise information on the opener's "multi" hand. The opener might very well now answer 3C which in my world of multi means that he has a weak traditional 2H opening hand (weaker or stronger depending on their more detailed agreements). For your story to hold water responder must now have passed. If he realized that he had given a wrong explanation his irregularity was that he did not immediately call the Director, but he would definitely not have passed. So the only reasonable explanation (not knowing his cards and the agreements he believed they had) is that the 3C bid in his eyes was so disappointing (even knowing that he faced a strong diamond hand) that he lost every ambition of even reaching game and judged that their best fit probably was in clubs. Neither in this scenario do we have any evidence of UI used. I am sure there can be other possible routes to 3C, some of which may include evidence of UI being used, but I repeat: In order to rule we must know both the auction and the nature of the UI in addition to the hands. You have to come better than you have done so far, but don't expect me to waste my time repeating my reasons any further. Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 10 12:26:07 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:26:07 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 10/10/2007 04:14:03 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: all the learned contributions on the subject of the de Wael school Is that Belgian for "the school of whales"? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 10 12:26:50 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:26:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous In-Reply-To: <000801c80b25$6a56fb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <470C8A1D.7030305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010121445.0283aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:07 10/10/2007 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >I understand that at the table they ended in 3C so from my understanding of >multi I must assume that he chose 3C as his first step towards game or maybe >even slam. That bid is fair enough (of course depending on his hand). > >Now let us turn back to the opener. As I have said before I would understand >a 3C response to my 2Di multi opening bid as a message to "forget about your >(weak) major suit, we shall play in my suit" which in this case is clubs. So >unless I have the 20-21 NT opening bid I have an almost obvious pass. AG : that's your conception of the bid, Sven. In mine, the 3C response to a Multi 2D opening bid is natural and *forcing*, the same way as it would be over a weak 2-bid. And I'm not alone. This means that, before we embark on a judgment about the 3C bid, we'd rather look at what their CC says about responses tu Multi. A step which is too often neglected by TDs and ACs. And if they don't prove 3C is a sign-off, I'll rule that the pass over a forcing 3C was a direct consequence of UI. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 12:48:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:48:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous (was SSSSS is S) In-Reply-To: <000801c80b25$6a56fb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c80b25$6a56fb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470CAE02.9090507@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>>> ........... >>>>>>> I feel familiar with multi but the given details from the auction >> make >>>>>>> no sense to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did the auction really go 2Di - pass - 3Cl - AP? If not please >>>> clarify. >>>>>> Is it very important how the auction actually went? I don't really >>>>>> remember, only that the table contract was 3Cl-5. >>>>>> Surely the UI to responder made him pass below what he should >> consider >>>>>> to be an easy 5Di contract? >>>>> I do wonder how you understand "Multi" when you ask if the complete >>>> auction >>>>> is important. >>>>> >>>>> In my world I only know the following routes to 3C after a 2D "multi" >>>>> opening bid (opponents pass): >>>>> >>>>> 2D - 3C (The 3C bid essentially means "forget your hand; we play in >>>> clubs") >>>>> 2D - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid shows a traditional weak 2H opening) >>>>> >>>>> 2D - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid accepts invitation to game in hearts and >> shows >>>>> additional values in clubs) >>>>> >>>>> 2D - 2H/S - 2NT - 3C (The 3C bid is Baron or Stayman etc. as agreed) >>>>> >>>>> 2D - 2H - 2S - 3C (The 3C bid is invitation/force to game in spades >> and >>>>> shows additional values in clubs) >>>>> >>>>> (There is one more legal auction that leads to 3C: 2D - 2H - 3C, but >>>> this >>>>> clearly shows that either the 2D was, or the 3C bid is a misbid.) >>>>> >>>>> So as you probably see: Their complete auction leading to 3C is indeed >>>>> important. >>>>> >>>> No Sven, it is absolutely not important once you rule that responder >>>> has used UI to stop anywhere below 5Di. >>> How can we rule that the player has used UI without knowing both the >> auction >>> and the nature of the UI? >>> >>> Maybe you can, I cannot. >>> >> Well, we do know the UI: 2Di was explained as strong and corrected! >> And we do know the auction: >> >> 2Di pass >> >> At this point, we can rule (if we want) that any bid other than 5Di is >> making use of UI. So we can rule! >> So Sven, do you accept that the ruling makes sense? > > Absolutely not! > > I must assume that the pass listed above was by opener's LHO or opener would > not have had another call, so the first question is what opener's partner > should now bid. > Indeed. > 5Di is definitely the one bid that is utterly ridiculous against a strong > (unlimited?) opening bid in 2Di. Why should he jump directly to game and > possibly miss a cold slam? He should make every effort to decide how high > and in what denomination they should eventually play. > OK, so you consider that it is not a LA. Fine. > I understand that at the table they ended in 3C so from my understanding of > multi I must assume that he chose 3C as his first step towards game or maybe > even slam. That bid is fair enough (of course depending on his hand). > I also believe that he chose 3Cl directly - so let's assume he did. > Now let us turn back to the opener. As I have said before I would understand > a 3C response to my 2Di multi opening bid as a message to "forget about your > (weak) major suit, we shall play in my suit" which in this case is clubs. So > unless I have the 20-21 NT opening bid I have an almost obvious pass. > Indeed. > And that's it! No use of UI in this scenario. > OK, maybe. But let's return now to the responder. He has UI. He has LA's, even if 5Di is not among them. 2Sp and 2He might be among them. He knows that partner will not pass one of them, if he chooses wrongly. He knows that if the bidding goes 2Di-2He-2Sp he is yet again on bid, and with UI, which he should not use. And from now on, his bids become forcing. He may well realize that the only bid which allows him to play below the five-level, undoubled. One could argue therefore that to choose 3Cl rather than 2He, 2Sp, or 2NT was based on the UI. > Another route to 3C is if responder bids 2NT which the opener understands as > asking for precise information on the opener's "multi" hand. The opener > might very well now answer 3C which in my world of multi means that he has a > weak traditional 2H opening hand (weaker or stronger depending on their more > detailed agreements). > Yeah, but having received the UI, we shall not allow him easily to "fall on his feet". Surely passing 3Cl is out of the question. > For your story to hold water responder must now have passed. If he realized > that he had given a wrong explanation his irregularity was that he did not > immediately call the Director, but he would definitely not have passed. > > So the only reasonable explanation (not knowing his cards and the agreements > he believed they had) is that the 3C bid in his eyes was so disappointing > (even knowing that he faced a strong diamond hand) that he lost every > ambition of even reaching game and judged that their best fit probably was > in clubs. > > Neither in this scenario do we have any evidence of UI used. > Of course we have! 2Di strong, and then passing over 3Cl with an opening and 4 high diamonds? > I am sure there can be other possible routes to 3C, some of which may > include evidence of UI being used, but I repeat: In order to rule we must > know both the auction and the nature of the UI in addition to the hands. > > You have to come better than you have done so far, but don't expect me to > waste my time repeating my reasons any further. > Well, I think I've done better now. But there is the added point that all alone in the world, this opener has corrected the explanation. Something he really should know not to do. We may be slightly more severe on such actions, may we not? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 10 13:11:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:11:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470CA37B.70704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .......... > > Can we not once and for all settle this discussion recognizing Hirsch's > > commendable observation of Law 75D which, although not explicitly > forbidding > > deliberate misinformation being given to opponents, clearly states that > a > > player who realizes that he has given such misinformation "MUST > IMMEDIATELY > > call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)". > > > > This law makes the question of primacy once MI is involved completely > > irrelevant. > > > > I only wish I myself had been alert enough to remember Law 75D during > the > > previous discussions. > > > > Except for the word "subsequently", that argument is indeed a good one. > But it does not settle the argument at all. > Since it is our opinion that anything which breaks L75D2 is to be > avoided, we have no other solution but breaking L75D1 (in your > interpretation) as well. What on earth has L75D2 to do in this discussion? We are discussing giving MI (or UI). L75D2 doesn't apply to the player giving MI at all; he is the explainer, not the explainer's partner. Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 10 13:36:51 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470CB953.3060600@ntlworld.com> In a message dated 10/10/2007 09:33:00 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. ............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 ............. H: T 7 4 ............. D: K ..............C: K 5 2 S: A 3 ............D..........S - H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 ............. S: K T 9 5 4 ............. H: J 8 3 ............. D: T 8 5 ............. C: Q 7 _W _N _E _S -- 3S _X 4S .P _P 5D [Paul Lamford] I think the point here is that the world and his dog are bidding something over 4S. East has a duty not to select from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation over 4S. As pass is not an LA, East has to bid something. The most likely thing partner may have been thinking of doing is doubling, but it could have been bidding 4NT or bidding at the five level. Therefore 5D is not suggested in any way (it is not the director's duty to judge the bridge merit of the bid, or the better alternatives 4NT and double, only to decide whether they are suggested by the UI) and the result stands. IMHO. Sounds like you wanted to have your cake and eat it as well. 4SX was a routine -500; and 5 clubs (after 4NT - (P) - 5C) was the same -420. What better result did you think you might get? [Nige1] Thanks Paul. A reasonable argument -- and almost certainly the route that the Director director took to his ruling :) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 13:45:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:45:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> .......... >>> Can we not once and for all settle this discussion recognizing Hirsch's >>> commendable observation of Law 75D which, although not explicitly >> forbidding >>> deliberate misinformation being given to opponents, clearly states that >> a >>> player who realizes that he has given such misinformation "MUST >> IMMEDIATELY >>> call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)". >>> >>> This law makes the question of primacy once MI is involved completely >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> I only wish I myself had been alert enough to remember Law 75D during >> the >>> previous discussions. >>> >> Except for the word "subsequently", that argument is indeed a good one. >> But it does not settle the argument at all. >> Since it is our opinion that anything which breaks L75D2 is to be >> avoided, we have no other solution but breaking L75D1 (in your >> interpretation) as well. > > What on earth has L75D2 to do in this discussion? > > We are discussing giving MI (or UI). L75D2 doesn't apply to the player > giving MI at all; he is the explainer, not the explainer's partner. > No, he is also the initial bidder - and the partner of the initial explainer, who has misexplained. If at this point in time you are still not up to date with what we are talking about when discussing the dWS, then most of what has gone before was useless. Let me therefore try to explain (one of) the typical case(s): North: 4NT (intended as asking for minors) South: alert East: yes please? South: Blackwood North: - (does not say anything as per L75D2) East: pass South: 5Di North: alert/no alert (could be important though) West: how many aces does that show North1 : 1 ace (North1 is an adept of the dWS) North2 : TD (North2 is a novice to this discussion) North3 : diamond preference (North3 in an adept of the MS) North4 : you silly moron, 4NT was not Blackwood (North4 is a Bully) Do you not agree that L75D2, which applied when North initially did not say anything, also applies when North has to select his alert/non alert, and certainly when North replies to West? L75D2 does not give any exceptions, and uses "in any manner" and "indicate" to show that everything is included, that means words, gestures, alerts and explanations. Do you not agree then that North4 breaks L75D2? Do you not also agree that North3 breaks L75D2? Do you not even agree that North2 breaks L75D2? IMO, only the actions of North1 are not in breach of L75D2. Of course, I agree, that North1 has given MI. But my point is that if none of these actions is legal (and we cannot find any other, legal, ones), then all these actions must become "acceptable". Well, maybe not North4. So of course L75D2 is important in this discussion. If you had not yet understood that, then I apologize for being less than completely clear. In addition, and since I have given the example now, do you agree or not that the opponents are entitled to the full system, which includes the replies to Blackwood, and that the explanation above by North3 is a case of MI, a true North3 should say: "basically 5Di shows diamond preference, but a 5Di reply to Blackwood shows 1KC in our system". Do you not agree that that first sentence (basically 5Di shows diamond preference) is totally useless to opponents (who already know that 5Di showed some number of aces, and has no bearing on the length of the diamond suit). Do you then not agree that leaving out that first sentence, while technically being MI, causes no damage and could well be treated as non-important MI (in the same way as a player saying "or strong options" when explaining a Multi has technically given MI, but will not be punished for it). Do you not then agree that the cost of giving UI far outweighs the cost of giving MI, and that (for the pair) it is better to select the option of North1? And then finally: do you not agree that to act as North1 is not the actions of a downright cheat? Maybe I'm going to fast at one go. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 10 13:47:55 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:47:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI clarification too early is advantageous In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010121445.0283aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c80b33$660f5e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................. > AG : that's your conception of the bid, Sven. In mine, the 3C response > to a Multi 2D opening bid is natural and *forcing*, the same way as it > would be over a weak 2-bid. And I'm not alone. Fair enough. (Nor am I alone) > This means that, before we embark on a judgment about the 3C bid, we'd > rather look at what their CC says about responses tu Multi. A step which > is too often neglected by TDs and ACs. Absolutely. And I have (God knows) how many times now asked for more information from Herman on this case and only received the comment that such information is unnecessary! (And unavailable) We don't even know who actually made the 3C bid and who passed out. > And if they don't prove 3C is a sign-off, I'll rule that the pass over a > forcing 3C was a direct consequence of UI. If 3C was made by the responder and was forcing for that partnership in the situation then I absolutely agree (unless the opener can show that he has grossly misbid (accidentally or on purpose) and tried to save what can be saved). If 3C was bid by the opener I do not see any way it could have been forcing. I am still confused over Herman's statement that they ruled both sides had used UI. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 10 15:09:21 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:09:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 21:39 8/10/2007 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Herman has decided that L73A has primacy, despite many attempts to >> convince >> him otherwise: > > You're plain wrong in your interpretation. > Herman has stated that when two laws contradict eachother, there is > no a priori primacy and it's the right -or perhaps duty- of every > citizen to try and minimize the incovenience it will cause to him > and others. He also stated that in his opinion MI was often less of > an inconvenience than UI was. > > You might disagree with the second bit, but the first can't be wrong. > This principle, too, is used at higher levels than bridge laws. > > One case we had in Belgium was at a road crossing with a stop > signal and a line to avoid cars approaching the transversal road > when stopping ; but if doing so, you couldn't see vehicles coming > down this road and therefore could never cross. The Court said the > driver who bypasses the line, because there is less danger in doing > so than in refusing to see vehicles coming, is right. > > BTW, in 2006, it was the matter of a question in an exam of Law in > 2nd year at our university, and those who said "one law must be > given some primacy" got 1 out of 7 possible points because the > question was "what do you do when there isn't ?", not "what is > best" ?" We all agree that it would be better to have primacies > explicitly written. The reason Herman has taken so much abuse of late (arguably) isn't because his position is illogical based on the words of TFLC alone. It is because those "primacies" *have* been explicitly established, by every regulating body that has addressed the issue, including the WBFLC and the ACBLLC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Wed Oct 10 16:41:59 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:41:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > Robert Geller wrote: >> David Burn writes: >>> I have been away from this list >>> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >>> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly >>> recollect >>> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>> about >>> your partner's hand. You are not. >> >> Amen. > > Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded > word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium Herman, you offered the floor to others in your OP that started yet another thread on the dWS views but you answer every post by repeating the same old arguments. It also deters you none that there is an official interpretation existing (see Grattan's post not too long ago) that finds dWS view incorrect. You then brush off lucid, complete arguments such as Hirsch Davis and David Burn, among others, have presented. The order of primacy of any relevant laws becomes crystal clear to a lay person in a case where the choice is between A) Giving deliberate MI about one's partnership agreements [one of the gravest offenses in bridge that normally leads to disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion] and B) Correctly explaining one's partnership agreements. Raija From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 16:51:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:51:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > The reason Herman has taken so much abuse of late (arguably) isn't > because his position is illogical based on the words of TFLC alone. > It is because those "primacies" *have* been explicitly established, > by every regulating body that has addressed the issue, including the > WBFLC and the ACBLLC. > Chapter and verse please. I have been writing about this issue for over 10 years now, and have spoken to Grattan Endicott about it. He did not cite any decision by the WBFLC on this issue, neither during his 10 years of reading my posts, nor during the 2 hours we spent going over this in Antalya. I am sure and certain that the WBFLC did not address this issue. And if the ACBLLC did, I would be surprised not to have heard about it either. And what's more: the reason I am being abused on this list is not because the abusers know more about this issue than I do, it's because they are closed minded and don't want to read reason or change their preconceptions. > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 10 17:05:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:05:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c80b4f$0b34a2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> .......... > > We are discussing giving MI (or UI). L75D2 doesn't apply to the player > > giving MI at all; he is the explainer, not the explainer's partner. > > > > No, he is also the initial bidder - and the partner of the initial > explainer, who has misexplained. > > If at this point in time you are still not up to date with what we are > talking about when discussing the dWS, then most of what has gone > before was useless. > > Let me therefore try to explain (one of) the typical case(s): > > North: 4NT (intended as asking for minors) > South: alert > East: yes please? > South: Blackwood > North: - (does not say anything as per L75D2) > East: pass > South: 5Di > North: alert/no alert (could be important though) > West: how many aces does that show > North1 : 1 ace (North1 is an adept of the dWS) > North2 : TD (North2 is a novice to this discussion) > North3 : diamond preference (North3 in an adept of the MS) > North4 : you silly moron, 4NT was not Blackwood (North4 is a Bully) North2 and North3 are the only actions I shall forthwith accept in my capacity as a director. North2 executed his privilege to call the director in a situation that appeared irregular to him. (I always tell players that it is never incorrect to call the Director if they feel they might need his help.) North3 is not supposed to explain his own call (and he did not), but he is supposed to give a complete explanation of his partner's call according to the agreements within their partnership. That opponents will (or at least should) detect a discrepancy between North and South in their understanding of their agreements is OK, the knowledge of this discrepancy is AI to them and UI to North and South who must complete their auction according to their own understanding of their agreements. South must complete his auction with the "knowledge" that North asked for aces and North must complete his auction "knowing" that South preferred diamonds. (Notice also that the information of just one ace in South is UI to North!) So what can be said of North1 and North4? North4 directly violated Law 74A, the law that I consider possibly the most important law in the whole book. He deserves no more comments but he does indeed deserve other reactions if he continues such behaviors. As for the rest of the auction he and South are subject to the same restrictions as specified above for North3 and South. The best that can be said about North1 is that he (based on unauthorized information) fielded a psyche from his partner, and I believe this is what we consider the most disgraceful action by any player in bridge. The fact that partner did not actually psyche because his deviation from agreements was unintentional does not change the effect of the choice made by North1 for his subsequent actions. And on your questions related to L75D2: North3 has in no way violated this law. He has explained his partner's call as he is supposed to do; he has not corrected his partner's explanation of his own call as he is supposed not to do. I believe this completes my comments on this entry? Sven > Do you not agree that L75D2, which applied when North initially did > not say anything, also applies when North has to select his alert/non > alert, and certainly when North replies to West? > > L75D2 does not give any exceptions, and uses "in any manner" and > "indicate" to show that everything is included, that means words, > gestures, alerts and explanations. > > Do you not agree then that North4 breaks L75D2? > Do you not also agree that North3 breaks L75D2? > Do you not even agree that North2 breaks L75D2? > > IMO, only the actions of North1 are not in breach of L75D2. > > Of course, I agree, that North1 has given MI. > > But my point is that if none of these actions is legal (and we cannot > find any other, legal, ones), then all these actions must become > "acceptable". Well, maybe not North4. > > So of course L75D2 is important in this discussion. > > If you had not yet understood that, then I apologize for being less > than completely clear. > > In addition, and since I have given the example now, do you agree or > not that the opponents are entitled to the full system, which includes > the replies to Blackwood, and that the explanation above by North3 is > a case of MI, a true North3 should say: > "basically 5Di shows diamond preference, but a 5Di reply to Blackwood > shows 1KC in our system". > > Do you not agree that that first sentence (basically 5Di shows diamond > preference) is totally useless to opponents (who already know that 5Di > showed some number of aces, and has no bearing on the length of the > diamond suit). Do you then not agree that leaving out that first > sentence, while technically being MI, causes no damage and could well > be treated as non-important MI (in the same way as a player saying "or > strong options" when explaining a Multi has technically given MI, but > will not be punished for it). > Do you not then agree that the cost of giving UI far outweighs the > cost of giving MI, and that (for the pair) it is better to select the > option of North1? > > And then finally: > do you not agree that to act as North1 is not the actions of a > downright cheat? > > Maybe I'm going to fast at one go. > > > Sven > > > > -- > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 17:48:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:48:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be> <000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> Robert Geller wrote: >>> David Burn writes: >>>> I have been away from this list >>>> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >>>> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly >>>> recollect >>>> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >>>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>>> about >>>> your partner's hand. You are not. >>> Amen. >> Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded >> word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium > I am sorry Raija, but you are not right in any of this: > Herman, you offered the floor to others in your OP that started yet another > thread on the dWS views but you answer every post by repeating the same old > arguments. Of course I repeat the same arguments, so do all the others. And while I consider my arguments to be supported by text and reason, most of the others just say "it's like that". Read the post by David Burn again and see if you can find any supporting evidence that David writes. His post ends: "I dimly recollect that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth about your partner's hand. You are not." > It also deters you none that there is an official > interpretation existing (see Grattan's post not too long ago) that finds dWS > view incorrect. Please find me that post again - there is nothing official about it, and if I do recollect what you are referring to, then please remember Alain's refutation to that interpretation. > You then brush off lucid, complete arguments such as Hirsch > Davis Hirsh is the only one that has attempted to answer my question. He has presented evidence that supports his theory that MI is stronger than UI. There has been no other evidence presented, and I have not yet presented my evidence to the contrary. > and David Burn, among others, have presented. As to the lucidity and completeness of David's arguments, see above > The order of primacy of any relevant laws becomes crystal clear to a lay > person in a case where the choice is between A) Giving deliberate MI about > one's partnership agreements [one of the gravest offenses in bridge that > normally leads to disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion] > and B) Correctly explaining one's partnership agreements. > Now please Raija, you really cannot believe this. Allow me to dissect your sentence: I have removed a few words, keeping the sentence intact: "The primacy becomes clear where the choice is between giving MI and correctly explaining agreements." So we are discussing whether one should give MI or UI, and you say that it is better to not give MI than to give MI. Well, I simply say to this: It is better not to give UI than to give UI. Please Raija, think this one through, and keep an open mind. There are two alternatives: 1) giving MI but no UI 2) not giving MI but giving UI Surely you can see that there is a dilemma here, which can only be solved by detailed examination. Not by stating the obvious fact that giving MI is worse than telling the correct agreements. And not by shouting from a high tower that it is like it is because it is like it is. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 17:51:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:51:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000601c80b4f$0b34a2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c80b4f$0b34a2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470CF4EE.3070101@skynet.be> Impossible! "he fielded a psyche from his partner". What the hell that means. I give up on Sven. Please others, continue to send me reasoned arguments. This does not warrant re-reading. Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael [or reposting] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 10 17:52:28 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:52:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unusual choice In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010100817.028322b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20071010100817.028322b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <61BFA31A-BC47-49D2-9A38-960BA850B096@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Apart from the fact that West didn't hold anything interesting, and > therefore didn't transmit any information about her hand This is interesting. East doesn't know what's in West's hand. She can't, unless they're cheating. So looking at West's hand to determine what information may have been transmitted seems futile to me. Rather, the question is "what inferences (correct or not) might East have drawn from West's hesitation?" One could argue that if the inference(s) drawn is incorrect, there will be no damage, and perhaps that's true. Seems to me though tht if you argue there was no UI because West didn't hold anything worth talking about, you'll never check to see if there was damage. Not a good thing, imo. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 10 17:56:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:56:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000601c80b4f$0b34a2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c80b4f$0b34a2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470CF62C.5030301@skynet.be> I said I would not comment any further, but I could not resist: Sven Pran wrote: > > And on your questions related to L75D2: North3 has in no way violated this > law. He has explained his partner's call as he is supposed to do; he has not > corrected his partner's explanation of his own call as he is supposed not to > do. > So the sentences "5Di shows diamond preference" and "4NT was not Blackwood" are not synonimous to Sven. Does everyone agree with that sentiment? Or is there some sense of sanity left in the building? > I believe this completes my comments on this entry? > > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Wed Oct 10 19:16:41 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> >>> Robert Geller wrote: >>>> David Burn writes: >>>>> I have been away from this list >>>>> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >>>>> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly >>>>> recollect >>>>> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >>>>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>>>> about >>>>> your partner's hand. You are not. >>>> Amen. >>> Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded >>> word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. >>> >>> -- >>> Herman DE WAEL >>> Antwerpen Belgium >> > > I am sorry Raija, but you are not right in any of this: > >> Herman, you offered the floor to others in your OP that started yet >> another >> thread on the dWS views but you answer every post by repeating the same >> old >> arguments. > > Of course I repeat the same arguments, so do all the others. > And while I consider my arguments to be supported by text and reason, > most of the others just say "it's like that". Read the post by David > Burn again and see if you can find any supporting evidence that David > writes. His post ends: "I dimly recollect that this involved the mad > notion that you are supposed to lie to your > opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth > about your partner's hand. You are not." > >> It also deters you none that there is an official >> interpretation existing (see Grattan's post not too long ago) that finds >> dWS >> view incorrect. > > Please find me that post again - there is nothing official about it, > and if I do recollect what you are referring to, then please remember > Alain's refutation to that interpretation. > >> You then brush off lucid, complete arguments such as Hirsch >> Davis > > Hirsh is the only one that has attempted to answer my question. He has > presented evidence that supports his theory that MI is stronger than > UI. There has been no other evidence presented, and I have not yet > presented my evidence to the contrary. > >> and David Burn, among others, have presented. > > As to the lucidity and completeness of David's arguments, see above > >> The order of primacy of any relevant laws becomes crystal clear to a lay >> person in a case where the choice is between A) Giving deliberate MI >> about >> one's partnership agreements [one of the gravest offenses in bridge that >> normally leads to disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion] >> and B) Correctly explaining one's partnership agreements. >> > > Now please Raija, you really cannot believe this. > Allow me to dissect your sentence: I have removed a few words, keeping > the sentence intact: > "The primacy becomes clear where the choice is between giving MI and > correctly explaining agreements." > > So we are discussing whether one should give MI or UI, and you say > that it is better to not give MI than to give MI. No. The choice is between giving a false explanation of one's agreements [a "crime" in civil/moral sense, ie. lying, and a grave offense in bridge law] or a true explanation of one's agreements. Majority of bridge players, the so-called lay people, do not know or care what MI or UI are, but they are honest people and will be stressed and puzzled if the Law [or rather, your exclusive interpretation of it] forces them to lie about their agreements. Or if someone of Herman's stature, a TD, advises them to tell a lie. Raija > Well, I simply say to this: It is better not to give UI than to give UI. > > Please Raija, think this one through, and keep an open mind. There are > two alternatives: > 1) giving MI but no UI > 2) not giving MI but giving UI > > Surely you can see that there is a dilemma here, which can only be > solved by detailed examination. Not by stating the obvious fact that > giving MI is worse than telling the correct agreements. > > And not by shouting from a high tower that it is like it is because it > is like it is. > >> Raija >> > > > -- > 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 10 18:44:52 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:44:52 +0800 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> [HdW] I am sure and certain that the WBFLC did not address this issue. And if the ACBLLC did, I would be surprised not to have heard about it either. [DALB] There was a celebrated case a few years ago involving Garozzo, the details of which I do not recall precisely but the gist of which was roughly: South made a bid that showed hearts. Systemically it showed four or five hearts, but it was explained as showing five hearts. South actually had five hearts, so (no doubt for the best of motives) did not see fit to correct the mistaken explanation. East, on lead against the final contract, did not lead a heart. A heart lead would have been successful; the actual lead was not. East argued that had he been told that South's bid showed four or five hearts, he would have led a heart. The ruling went in favour of East-West - that is, the committee decided that had East been given accurate information about North-South's agreements, instead of accurate information about South's actual hand, he would (fortuitously) have found the winning lead. I believe that this happened in an ACBL event. I can if necessary unearth the details when I return from Shanghai, but I am sure that other subscribers to this list will know them already. Kaplan wrote in the Bridge World many years ago on this topic; his view was clearly that a pair was under an obligation to explain its agreements even if it knew that by doing so, it would deceive the opponents as to the actual cards it held. It seems to me reasonable to infer that the ACBL has at least tacitly accepted the notion that you must tell your opponents what your bids mean, not what cards your partner has got. Herman has said that the Laws are inconsistent, but I do not find them so as far as this issue is concerned. As I have said, a player's duty is to be deaf when the opponents are asking questions and his partner is answering them. It would be better if the Laws explicitly said this, rather than saying "when a player has UI, he must not act on it", but the effect is the same. Of course, this may require superhuman feats of doublethink by players - but these are not impossible. I recall a deal from a late round of the Spring Foursomes, a major English competition, a great many years ago. David Price and I bid the North-South cards (it does not matter what they were) thus: West North East South Burn Price 2D (1) 2NT (2) Pass 3D (3) Pass 3H (4) Pass 4C (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass 6D (7) Pass 6H (8) Pass Pass Pass (1) Multi (2) Price played this as minors, a suggestion that I had vetoed (we were a new partnership), but he alerted it because he was convinced that my veto was not in force for this event. (3) I, who was convinced that my veto was in force for this event, altered 3D because it was a transfer to hearts. At no time did our opponents ask any questions. Here we were in the position I described in an earlier post - although we were not giving explanations, our alerts in themselves would misinform our opponents, but neither of us knew who was doing the misinforming since we both genuinely did not know what our actual methods were, and we could not therefore apply L75D2. (4) I was completing the transfer; Price thought I had a big minor two-suiter with a heart fragment. (Of course, he knew that I did not really have this, but he knew that he was supposed to proceed as though I did.) (5) Price was showing a useful feature in clubs (he had Qx); I thought he had a heart-club two-suiter. (Of course, I knew that he did not really have this, but I knew that I was supposed to proceed as though he did.) (6) I was signing off in hearts; Price was pretending that I had a control. (7) Price was signing off in diamonds; I was pretending that he was asking about trump quality in hearts. (8) My hearts weren't very good. This wasn't particularly surprising, since West had a maximum weak two bid in the suit. The final contract went six down undoubled, NS minus 300. At the other table West opened 1H, North overcalled 1NT, East doubled, everyone passed and the contract went two down, NS minus 300 and one of the more remarkable flat boards in history. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 21:15:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:15:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <470C90B0.4070809@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Yes Herman De Wael agrees that the dWS options are >illegal. And yes, that does not matter since there >are internal inconsistencies in the lawbook. > >The problem is with the proponents of the MS: Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. One cannot use the word "the" to describe "proponents of the Majority School". One can use "the" to describe "The De Wael School", because it is a single monolithic and internally self-consistent set of beliefs, due to being carefully crafted by a single author. *If* one chooses to accept the De Wael School axioms, *then* all the ramifications of the De Wael School unfold with Euclidean logic. On the other hand, because a multiplicity of people oppose the De Wael School, there are as many different nuances in the Majority School as there are different churches in Christianity. (For the record, my Christian faith could best be described as "Anglican Anarchist".) Herman De Wael: >They claim that: >a) the lawbook has no internal inconsistencies Richard Hills: My Majority School nuance is that it is possible to interpret the 1997 Lawbook in varying ways, including in a way in which the 1997 Lawbook does have one or more internal consistencies. My further nuance is that under the "Beware of the leopard" principle, the 1997 Lawbook is necessary but not sufficient to resolve its own interpretation. My ultimate nuance is that the WBF Code of Practice gives clear guidance on which of the De Wael School or Majority School varying ways the 1997 Lawbook should be correctly interpreted. >b) the dWS actions are illegal and they conclude >therefore: > >the MS are legal > >They forget that: >c) the MS actions are illegal Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. As the De Wael School interprets the 1997 Lawbook, the Majority School actions are illegal. As the WBF Code of Practice interprets the 1997 Lawbook, the Majority School actions are legal. >d) the lawbook does have internal inconsistencies Begging the question, petitio principii. As the De Wael School interprets the 1997 Lawbook, it has internal inconsistencies. As the WBF Code of Practice interprets the 1997 Lawbook, it is fully internally consistent. Herman De Wael: >from which one should conclude that: Richard Hills: *If* one chooses to accept the De Wael School axioms, *then* all the ramifications of the De Wael School unfold with Euclidean logic. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Richard Hills: >>his idiosyncratic interpretation of Law. Herman De Wael: >Richard : Why do you always have to inject >subjective and inflammatory adjectives into >otherwise sensible sentences? Richard Hills: Since English is not Herman's native idiom, Herman may be aware that the "idio" of the adjective "idiosyncratic" (and the noun "idiom") is an etymological cognate of the "idio" in "idiot", but Herman may be unaware that the English meanings of "idiosyncratic" and "idiotic" are not synonymous. The etymology of "idiosyncratic" is derived from three Greek words: idios = private, own sun = with kerannumi = mix Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "idiosyncrasy, n. view peculiar to a person" Since Herman De Wael has dubbed the non-De Wael School the "Majority School", he has therefore admitted that his own private view peculiar to himself fits the definition of an "idiosyncrasy". Ergo, my use of the adjective "idiosyncratic" was objectively stating that the De Wael School is a minority view, but _not_ subjectively stating that Herman De Wael is an idiot. 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 11 00:05:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:05:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470CF4EE.3070101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Impossible! > "he fielded a psyche from his partner". > What the hell that means. > I give up on Sven. > Please others, continue to send me reasoned arguments. This does not > warrant re-reading. Last comment from me to enlighten Herman (if he reads this): South bid 5D, this was a gross deviation from the agreements within that partnership. The agreements called for South to show his preference between the minors. Technically this is not a psyche, but only because the deviation from agreements was not deliberate. There is however nothing in the situation to make it any different from a true psyche for the opponents. (And I specifically said so.) If North then explains the bid to show 1 Ace instead of giving the correct explanation (that it was a minor preference) he "fielded" this misbid from South. Opponents have now not received the information they are entitled to, namely that there is a misunderstanding within the partnership. And what more, if a similar situation occurs another time against the same players these opponents are not likely to ask for another explanation of 4NT or the corresponding response from South if it is in minors; they already have the information that this sequence is ordinary Blackwood. These are my main reasons for stating that the effect for opponents of the misinformation from North is equivalent to North fielding a psyche. I understand very well that Herman prefers not to understand this logic, and I also understand why the duty to always give correct information, even when a consequence is creation of UI to partner, must be absolute. Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Oct 11 00:26:56 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:26:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com><470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be> <000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c80b8c$aad10090$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ---- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:48:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Surely you can see that there is a dilemma here, which can only be solved by detailed examination. Not by stating the obvious fact that giving MI is worse than telling the correct agreements. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html ******************** We are being much too complex about the whole thing. Let's try something very simple: 1) L20F requires an explanation of the auction if requested by an opponent (through the play period). 2) Explanations of the auction are UI under L16A (note that replies to questions are explicitly determined to be a possible source of UI. 3) It is illegal to provide UI to partner (73B1) Therefore: *It is illegal to answer the opponents' questions about your system at all.* There you have it. The ultimate result of Herman's "logic", and the final conclusion reached if you follow the logic of the dWs. Anything you say can be UI, so say nothing but calls or plays in their proper turns. I don't know what game that is, but it's not bridge. Somehow, I suspect that this is not what the lawmakers intended by 73B1. Let's try something different: 1) L20F (and L40) require an explanation of the auction if requested by an opponent (through the play period). Full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements is required. 2) Explanations of the auction are UI under L16A Therefore: *It is both legal and appropriate to provide UI to partner if required to do so by Law.* Notice that I did not refer to 73B1 in the second scenario. It is not relevant, because L73 refers to communications to partner, not communications to the opponents. When such communications to the opponents occur during correct procedure, partner is under an obligation under L16A. The obligation to not take advantage of such a situation is stated in L73C. So, if we simply follow the procedures in Law, we come to the realization that UI is inevitable if we are to have proper disclosure as required by Law. It is also not illegal, unless it is being used as a vehicle to communicate to partner, in which case L73 comes into play. As long as L73 is kept in proper perspective, that it refers to communications to partner and not the opponents, we realize that proper disclosure is not a violation of L73 in any way (although if partner hears and uses such disclosure, it is a grave violation). We also reach the conclusion that L73 is not an excuse for violation of any other Law. Most of us already knew that. Hirsch Davis From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Oct 11 00:30:40 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:30:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > North: 4NT (intended as asking for minors) > South: alert > East: yes please? > South: Blackwood > North: - (does not say anything as per L75D2) > East: pass > South: 5Di > North: alert/no alert (could be important though) > West: how many aces does that show > North1 : 1 ace (North1 is an adept of the dWS) > North2 : TD (North2 is a novice to this discussion) > North3 : diamond preference (North3 in an adept of the MS) > North4 : you silly moron, 4NT was not Blackwood (North4 is a Bully) > > Do you not then agree that the cost of giving UI far outweighs the > cost of giving MI, and that (for the pair) it is better to select the > option of North1? > > And then finally: > do you not agree that to act as North1 is not the actions of a > downright cheat? > North3 has given the correct, and only legal, explanation. At this point, S should no doubt summon the TD. North1 has used UI from partner's explantion of Blackwood to convert the actual meaning of the bid to Blackwood, regardless of what North1 originally believed the actual system to be. This NS can now have a Blackwood auction that might even get to a correct contract, when in fact the wheels have fallen off. These are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. Hirsch Davis From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 01:00:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:00:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> Message-ID: <470D597E.70902@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I am sure and certain that the WBFLC did not address this issue. And > if the ACBLLC did, I would be surprised not to have heard about it either. > > [DALB] > > There was a celebrated case a few years ago involving Garozzo, the details > of which I do not recall precisely but the gist of which was roughly: > > South made a bid that showed hearts. Systemically it showed four or five > hearts, but it was explained as showing five hearts. South actually had five > hearts, so (no doubt for the best of motives) did not see fit to correct the > mistaken explanation. > which is a separate infringement of L75D2, and one which I do not agree with at all. Quite a different case therefore, and I do not see the relevance. > East, on lead against the final contract, did not lead a heart. A heart lead > would have been successful; the actual lead was not. > > East argued that had he been told that South's bid showed four or five > hearts, he would have led a heart. > > The ruling went in favour of East-West - that is, the committee decided that > had East been given accurate information about North-South's agreements, > instead of accurate information about South's actual hand, he would > (fortuitously) have found the winning lead. > > I believe that this happened in an ACBL event. I can if necessary unearth > the details when I return from Shanghai, but I am sure that other > subscribers to this list will know them already. > > Kaplan wrote in the Bridge World many years ago on this topic; his view was > clearly that a pair was under an obligation to explain its agreements even > if it knew that by doing so, it would deceive the opponents as to the actual > cards it held. It seems to me reasonable to infer that the ACBL has at least > tacitly accepted the notion that you must tell your opponents what your bids > mean, not what cards your partner has got. > And I agree with that. But when describing partner's bid in the way he intended it, I don't see how the actual system can be better. > Herman has said that the Laws are inconsistent, but I do not find them so as > far as this issue is concerned. As I have said, a player's duty is to be > deaf when the opponents are asking questions and his partner is answering > them. It would be better if the Laws explicitly said this, rather than > saying "when a player has UI, he must not act on it", but the effect is the > same. But is it not better NOT to give UI, when one can avoid it? Is that not even what some laws ask? > > Of course, this may require superhuman feats of doublethink by players - but > these are not impossible. I recall a deal from a late round of the Spring > Foursomes, a major English competition, a great many years ago. David Price > and I bid the North-South cards (it does not matter what they were) thus: > > West North East South > Burn Price > 2D (1) 2NT (2) Pass 3D (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 4C (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 6D (7) > Pass 6H (8) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Multi > (2) Price played this as minors, a suggestion that I had vetoed (we were a > new partnership), but he alerted it because he was convinced that my veto > was not in force for this event. and you meant it as natural, so not alertable. OK, then you had UI. > (3) I, who was convinced that my veto was in force for this event, altered > 3D because it was a transfer to hearts. At no time did our opponents ask any > questions. Here we were in the position I described in an earlier post - > although we were not giving explanations, our alerts in themselves would > misinform our opponents, but neither of us knew who was doing the > misinforming since we both genuinely did not know what our actual methods > were, and we could not therefore apply L75D2. He intended 3Di as preference, which would not be alertable. You OTOH, had to interpret this as transfer to hearts, which would be alertable. Now you did break L75D2 by alerting. OK? In any case, he now also has UI. Now what would have happened if you had not alerted 3Di, but just bid 3He. Now he does not have UI, but from the bid, and his knowledge of you, he might just get the picture. Then he applies L75D1, changes his previous explanation, and does what he want. Of course you still have UI, and you should still proceed with thinking he does have hearts, possibly correcting his natural 3NT to 4He, playing in the 3-2 fit, but that's probably better than what really happened: > (4) I was completing the transfer; Price thought I had a big minor > two-suiter with a heart fragment. (Of course, he knew that I did not really > have this, but he knew that he was supposed to proceed as though I did.) > (5) Price was showing a useful feature in clubs (he had Qx); I thought he > had a heart-club two-suiter. (Of course, I knew that he did not really have > this, but I knew that I was supposed to proceed as though he did.) > (6) I was signing off in hearts; Price was pretending that I had a control. > (7) Price was signing off in diamonds; I was pretending that he was asking > about trump quality in hearts. > (8) My hearts weren't very good. This wasn't particularly surprising, since > West had a maximum weak two bid in the suit. > > The final contract went six down undoubled, NS minus 300. At the other table > West opened 1H, North overcalled 1NT, East doubled, everyone passed and the > contract went two down, NS minus 300 and one of the more remarkable flat > boards in history. > > David Burn > London, England > Anyway, this story proves only one thing: if you do give UI, you end up far too high. If you don't give UI, you can stop lower down. All you have done is given additional MI, probably not damaging. Now David. Suppose I had been sitting in your seat, and I had not alerted 3Di, and my Price had woken up, and there had been no UI. What would you have ruled? would it have been: "Herman, you have been found guilty of the crime of not giving UI. I shall now rule as if you had given UI, and I will not allow your partner to wake up, even when he has just shown that he did not need the UI to wake up in the first place". Do you really believe that this is what the rules say? So then we have come to the crunch question. What I do appears to be illegal to all of you, yet if I do it, there is nothing you can do about it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 01:03:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:03:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be> <000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >>> >>> >>>> Robert Geller wrote: >>>>> David Burn writes: >>>>>> I have been away from this list >>>>>> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >>>>>> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly >>>>>> recollect >>>>>> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to your >>>>>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>>>>> about >>>>>> your partner's hand. You are not. >>>>> Amen. >>>> Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded >>>> word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Herman DE WAEL >>>> Antwerpen Belgium >> I am sorry Raija, but you are not right in any of this: >> >>> Herman, you offered the floor to others in your OP that started yet >>> another >>> thread on the dWS views but you answer every post by repeating the same >>> old >>> arguments. >> Of course I repeat the same arguments, so do all the others. >> And while I consider my arguments to be supported by text and reason, >> most of the others just say "it's like that". Read the post by David >> Burn again and see if you can find any supporting evidence that David >> writes. His post ends: "I dimly recollect that this involved the mad >> notion that you are supposed to lie to your >> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >> about your partner's hand. You are not." >> >>> It also deters you none that there is an official >>> interpretation existing (see Grattan's post not too long ago) that finds >>> dWS >>> view incorrect. >> Please find me that post again - there is nothing official about it, >> and if I do recollect what you are referring to, then please remember >> Alain's refutation to that interpretation. >> >>> You then brush off lucid, complete arguments such as Hirsch >>> Davis >> Hirsh is the only one that has attempted to answer my question. He has >> presented evidence that supports his theory that MI is stronger than >> UI. There has been no other evidence presented, and I have not yet >> presented my evidence to the contrary. >> >>> and David Burn, among others, have presented. >> As to the lucidity and completeness of David's arguments, see above >> >>> The order of primacy of any relevant laws becomes crystal clear to a lay >>> person in a case where the choice is between A) Giving deliberate MI >>> about >>> one's partnership agreements [one of the gravest offenses in bridge that >>> normally leads to disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion] >>> and B) Correctly explaining one's partnership agreements. >>> >> Now please Raija, you really cannot believe this. >> Allow me to dissect your sentence: I have removed a few words, keeping >> the sentence intact: >> "The primacy becomes clear where the choice is between giving MI and >> correctly explaining agreements." >> >> So we are discussing whether one should give MI or UI, and you say >> that it is better to not give MI than to give MI. > > No. The choice is between giving a false explanation of one's agreements [a > "crime" in civil/moral sense, ie. lying, and a grave offense in bridge law] > or a true explanation of one's agreements. > > Majority of bridge players, the so-called lay people, do not know or care > what MI or UI are, but they are honest people and will be stressed and > puzzled if the Law [or rather, your exclusive interpretation of it] forces > them to lie about their agreements. Or if someone of Herman's stature, a > TD, advises them to tell a lie. > Well, I guess most people would not know that saying "he is showing one ace" is a lie when that is exactly what he was showing in the first place. Also, most players would recognise that answering "diamond preference" to the question "how many aces" is not only a lie, but a deliberate roundabout way of saying "that was not blackwood". But then again, what do most players know! > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 01:09:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:09:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> North: 4NT (intended as asking for minors) >> South: alert >> East: yes please? >> South: Blackwood >> North: - (does not say anything as per L75D2) >> East: pass >> South: 5Di >> North: alert/no alert (could be important though) >> West: how many aces does that show >> North1 : 1 ace (North1 is an adept of the dWS) >> North2 : TD (North2 is a novice to this discussion) >> North3 : diamond preference (North3 in an adept of the MS) >> North4 : you silly moron, 4NT was not Blackwood (North4 is a Bully) >> >> Do you not then agree that the cost of giving UI far outweighs the >> cost of giving MI, and that (for the pair) it is better to select the >> option of North1? >> >> And then finally: >> do you not agree that to act as North1 is not the actions of a >> downright cheat? >> > > North3 has given the correct, and only legal, explanation. At this point, S > should no doubt summon the TD. > > North1 has used UI from partner's explantion of Blackwood to convert the > actual meaning of the bid to Blackwood, regardless of what North1 originally > believed the actual system to be. This NS can now have a Blackwood auction > that might even get to a correct contract, when in fact the wheels have > fallen off. These are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. > Hirsh, sorry, but that is not the case. North1 has used UI, true, to give an explanation. L16 does not prohibit this. I have not said anything about North1's next bid. It is under the same restrictions as North2 and North3. OTOH, North2 and North3 have told their partner that 4NT was not Blackwood. Those are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. > Hirsch Davis > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 01:11:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:11:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBFLC In-Reply-To: <200710102046.l9AKkQBK014695@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710102046.l9AKkQBK014695@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <470D5C2D.5060509@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > Hi, Herman. > > There's a picture of some of the WBFLC at > http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/07_2%20Shanghai/pdf/bul_11.pdf > > Can you identify the members? If so, perhaps BLML will be interested. > I can: Kooijman, Polisner, Endicott, Wignall, Schroeder (aka Kojak), Bavin, Gerard -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Thu Oct 11 02:33:28 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:33:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:48 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >>>> >>>> >>>>> Robert Geller wrote: >>>>>> David Burn writes: >>>>>>> I have been away from this list >>>>>>> for some time, and I cannot bring myself to read all the learned >>>>>>> contributions on the subject of the de Wael school, but I dimly >>>>>>> recollect >>>>>>> that this involved the mad notion that you are supposed to lie to >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> your partner's hand. You are not. >>>>>> Amen. >>>>> Amen is a word that indicates unconditional belief in the unfounded >>>>> word of a higher authority. As such, it is well chosen. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Herman DE WAEL >>>>> Antwerpen Belgium >>> I am sorry Raija, but you are not right in any of this: >>> >>>> Herman, you offered the floor to others in your OP that started yet >>>> another >>>> thread on the dWS views but you answer every post by repeating the same >>>> old >>>> arguments. >>> Of course I repeat the same arguments, so do all the others. >>> And while I consider my arguments to be supported by text and reason, >>> most of the others just say "it's like that". Read the post by David >>> Burn again and see if you can find any supporting evidence that David >>> writes. His post ends: "I dimly recollect that this involved the mad >>> notion that you are supposed to lie to your >>> opponents about your methods for the sake of telling them the truth >>> about your partner's hand. You are not." >>> >>>> It also deters you none that there is an official >>>> interpretation existing (see Grattan's post not too long ago) that >>>> finds >>>> dWS >>>> view incorrect. >>> Please find me that post again - there is nothing official about it, >>> and if I do recollect what you are referring to, then please remember >>> Alain's refutation to that interpretation. >>> >>>> You then brush off lucid, complete arguments such as Hirsch >>>> Davis >>> Hirsh is the only one that has attempted to answer my question. He has >>> presented evidence that supports his theory that MI is stronger than >>> UI. There has been no other evidence presented, and I have not yet >>> presented my evidence to the contrary. >>> >>>> and David Burn, among others, have presented. >>> As to the lucidity and completeness of David's arguments, see above >>> >>>> The order of primacy of any relevant laws becomes crystal clear to a >>>> lay >>>> person in a case where the choice is between A) Giving deliberate MI >>>> about >>>> one's partnership agreements [one of the gravest offenses in bridge >>>> that >>>> normally leads to disciplinary action, including suspension or >>>> expulsion] >>>> and B) Correctly explaining one's partnership agreements. >>>> >>> Now please Raija, you really cannot believe this. >>> Allow me to dissect your sentence: I have removed a few words, keeping >>> the sentence intact: >>> "The primacy becomes clear where the choice is between giving MI and >>> correctly explaining agreements." >>> >>> So we are discussing whether one should give MI or UI, and you say >>> that it is better to not give MI than to give MI. >> >> No. The choice is between giving a false explanation of one's agreements >> [a >> "crime" in civil/moral sense, ie. lying, and a grave offense in bridge >> law] >> or a true explanation of one's agreements. >> >> Majority of bridge players, the so-called lay people, do not know or care >> what MI or UI are, but they are honest people and will be stressed and >> puzzled if the Law [or rather, your exclusive interpretation of it] >> forces >> them to lie about their agreements. Or if someone of Herman's stature, a >> TD, advises them to tell a lie. >> > > Well, I guess most people would not know that saying "he is showing > one ace" is a lie when that is exactly what he was showing in the > first place. *** It is irrelevant what partner's hand is - what he holds in his hand has no effect on what the partnership agreement is. The question opponents asked and the question we are by law required to answer is NOT what his hand is, but what the partnership agreement is. > Also, most players would recognise that answering "diamond preference" > to the question "how many aces" is not only a lie, but a deliberate > roundabout way of saying "that was not blackwood". > > But then again, what do most players know! > >> Raija >> > > > -- > 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Oct 11 03:36:39 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:36:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be><004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c80ba7$2bccb8a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> >>> North: 4NT (intended as asking for minors) >>> South: alert >>> East: yes please? >>> South: Blackwood >>> North: - (does not say anything as per L75D2) >>> East: pass >>> South: 5Di >>> North: alert/no alert (could be important though) >>> West: how many aces does that show >>> North1 : 1 ace (North1 is an adept of the dWS) >>> North2 : TD (North2 is a novice to this discussion) >>> North3 : diamond preference (North3 in an adept of the MS) >>> North4 : you silly moron, 4NT was not Blackwood (North4 is a Bully) >>> >>> Do you not then agree that the cost of giving UI far outweighs the >>> cost of giving MI, and that (for the pair) it is better to select the >>> option of North1? >>> >>> And then finally: >>> do you not agree that to act as North1 is not the actions of a >>> downright cheat? >>> >> >> North3 has given the correct, and only legal, explanation. At this >> point, S >> should no doubt summon the TD. >> >> North1 has used UI from partner's explantion of Blackwood to convert the >> actual meaning of the bid to Blackwood, regardless of what North1 >> originally >> believed the actual system to be. This NS can now have a Blackwood >> auction >> that might even get to a correct contract, when in fact the wheels have >> fallen off. These are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. >> > > Hirsh, sorry, but that is not the case. > North1 has used UI, true, to give an explanation. L16 does not > prohibit this. > I have not said anything about North1's next bid. It is under the same > restrictions as North2 and North3. > > OTOH, North2 and North3 have told their partner that 4NT was not > Blackwood. Those are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. > And I thought I was going to get out of this thread... A cheat is someone who uses an infraction to his advantage (when that advantage is not permitted by law). North1 knows that the auction has come off of the tracks, and is headed for misunderstanding hell. However, he has now converted it to a Blackwood auction. What should happen at this point is that he answers truly and ethically, as North3 did. The TD is likely summoned, and can monitor the auction to insure that neither player takes advantage of the UI. North3 has not told partner anything. He has told the opponents what his partner's bid means systemically. His partner is now obligated to treat this as UI, and continue the auction as though it were a Blackwood auction even though he knows it is not. You use MI, which is explicitly forbidden, to keep partner asleep. But there is absolutely no need to keep an ethical and law-abiding partner asleep. He'll do it himself. There is a need to give the opponents a full explanation of the true systemic meaning of your partner's call. Calling a novice (North2) a cheat is silliness, and you deserve far more contempt than you've received on this list for even making the suggestion. A novice will have no idea what to do, and calling the TD is exactly the right thing. The TD will then tell him his responsibility to disclose partnership agreements and monitor the auction. North4 is not a cheat, because he has created a L75 situation that mandates the presence of the TD, who will insure that his side gets no advantage from his infraction. However, a disciplinary penalty would certainly be in order. It is only North1, our intrepid dWs follower, who has committed an illegal action that could work to his advantage. There's your cheat. Hirsch Davis From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 11 03:56:02 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:56:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> Message-ID: <013d01c80ba9$e2171040$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Burn" > > There was a celebrated case a few years ago involving Garozzo, the details > of which I do not recall precisely but the gist of which was roughly: > > South made a bid that showed hearts. Systemically it showed four or five > hearts, but it was explained as showing five hearts. South actually had five > hearts, so (no doubt for the best of motives) did not see fit to correct the > mistaken explanation. > > East, on lead against the final contract, did not lead a heart. A heart lead > would have been successful; the actual lead was not. > > East argued that had he been told that South's bid showed four or five > hearts, he would have led a heart. > > The ruling went in favour of East-West - that is, the committee decided that > had East been given accurate information about North-South's agreements, > instead of accurate information about South's actual hand, he would > (fortuitously) have found the winning lead. > > I believe that this happened in an ACBL event. I can if necessary unearth > the details when I return from Shanghai, but I am sure that other > subscribers to this list will know them already. It was at the Miami NABC in the early 90s, and this isn't the way I remember it. The bid didn't show heart length necessarily, but possibly. It was explained as definitely showing a suit, whereupon the bidder, Karen McCallum, very agitated, corrected the explanation by saying it could be a suit or it could be just strength. This was the partnership's agreement. She did have a suit, and Garozzo led a heart (misled by the agitation, he said), which turned out badly. The AC said that Karen had done exactly the right thing Fast forward to Appeal 13 Dallas NABC 2006. Karen complained that a player had not corrected partner's statement even though what was said matched her hand. A commentator on the cases wrote: "Wow, what irony! N/S stated that since East's hand did not match her partner's statement, East was required to correct that explanation. And yet North (Karen McCallum) more than anyone else is single-handedly responsible for the opposite legal principle. When faced with an accurate description of her hand but not her agreement against Garozzo in Miami, she corrected the explanation and has been almost unanimously upheld over the years. People really are blind when it comes to the merits of their own case." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 04:02:26 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:02:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710101902n62a6274csfe627a5800b7de3e@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] As I have said, a player's duty is to be deaf when the opponents are asking questions and his partner is answering them. It would be better if the Laws explicitly said this, rather than saying "when a player has UI, he must not act on it", but the effect is the same. [Jerry] You don't want exactly that, do you? Surely you want the player to listen to his partner's response so that he can correct any error at the proper time. (In the ACBL, I frequently hear that a misexplanation was not corrected because of this kind of intentional deafness.) Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 11 04:34:49 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:34:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470D8BC9.9020208@ntlworld.com> [Hirsch Davis] North1 has used UI from partner's explanation of Blackwood to convert the actual meaning of the bid to Blackwood, regardless of what North1 originally believed the actual system to be. This NS can now have a Blackwood auction that might even get to a correct contract, when in fact the wheels have fallen off. These are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. [nige1] Hirsch Davis may be right -- if you assume that the player knows that he his breaking the law. IMO, however, it is rare for a player to cheat deliberately. The fault lies mostly with law makers for concocting unclear, complex, sophisticated, subjective, inconsistent and incomplete rules -- also encouraging each jurisdiction to reinvent and supplement these rules in different idiosyncratic ways. In such a context, it's hard to understand how BLMLers can blame a player or director who tries to compensate for the WBFLC's failures with his own interpretations. And no wonder so many players rationalise behaviour that an observer may be tempted to categorise as blatant cheating. The least that the WBFLC should do, is to nip disputes about interpretation in the bud: by immediately clarifying rules, in place, in an on-line version of the law book (never! never! in some obscure and verbose minute or appeal advice). You could argue that the underlying reason is that directors, administrators and law-makers enjoy a cosy relationship on which ordinary player's views have negligible affect. Although the current legal malaise puts their services at a premium, directors must realise that it discourages would-be players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 08:07:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:07:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anna Gudge, Shanghai blog, Wednesday 10th October 2007: http://ecatsbridge.blogspot.com/ I thought I would try and finish early - joke !!! But it has been a good day for getting things done. You may have seen the picture of the Laws Drafting Sub Committee in today's bulletin, relaxing after a job well done. It has been a long hard slog for them to get the draft done and they certainly deserved the celebration ! The day went quickly - the last bits of the laws printed off for the final final proofread, [snip] 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 Oct 11 08:48:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:48:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Afghanistan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps with screens Your partnership is playing an unusually boring Highly Unusual Method - Standard American with a 1D Fertiliser Bid. Dealer West, North-South vulnerable WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 2C(2) Dble(3) 2S 3H(4) Pass ? (1) You, East, alert and explain to North (your screenmate) that 1C shows a hand which a normal Standard American bidder would either open 1C, or open 1D. (2) North alerts and explains their own call to you as showing 5/5 in the majors, either weak or game force. (3) You, East, alert and explain to North that your double shows general values, typically with a fairly balanced hand. (4) You, East, alert and explain to North that you have an implicit partnership agreement that 3H is a probe for 3NT. However, since North's 2C was showing two suits, not one, you have an unresolved conflict in your implicit partnership agreements on whether 3H is showing a stopper, or alternatively asking for a stopper. You, East, hold: J983 K54 QJ74 K2 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 10 10:46:46 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:46:46 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Unusual_choice?= References: <470C8E2C.6080506@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <470C9174.000001.30823@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Guthrie Date : 10/10/2007 10:32:55 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Unusual choice I've done it again. Sorry! I missed out a bid. East DOUBLED 3D. Corrected below. Club Teams. Board 1. None Vul. North Deals. .............. S: Q J 8 7 6 2 .............. H: T 7 4 .............. D: K ...............C: K 5 2 S: A 3 ............D..........S - H: K Q 2 ..........N..........H: A 9 6 5 D: 9 7 6 2 ......W.+ E........D: A Q J 4 3 C: T 9 8 3 ........S..........C: A J 6 4 .............. S: K T 9 5 4 .............. H: J 8 3 .............. D: T 8 5 .............. C: Q 7 _W _N _E _S -- 3S _X 4S ..P _P 5D AG : I suppose East doubled 3S rather than 3D ;-) The essence of my argument remains the same : 1. A little tempo means less than no tempo at all in such situations. 2. West could be thinking about doubling (and more so in this situation than without the double), in which case East's 5D bid would be wrong. This is a case of "the hesitation doesn't suggest anything specific". A double by East could be an attempt at covering all bases, and therefore be disallowed ; this isn't the case of 5D. In a way, bidding 5D rather than doubling is "bending backwards". Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071010/272ee170/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/20071010/272ee170/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071010/272ee170/attachment-0001.gif From schoderb at msn.com Thu Oct 11 02:15:42 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:15:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBFLC References: <200710102046.l9AKkQBK014695@cfa.harvard.edu> <470D5C2D.5060509@skynet.be> Message-ID: It would be more correct to spell my name SCHODER. Mr. Schroeder is no longer closely associated with the WBF, much less the WBFLC. Bill (a.k.a. Kojak) ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBFLC Steve Willner wrote: > Hi, Herman. > > There's a picture of some of the WBFLC at > http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/07_2%20Shanghai/pdf/bul_11.pdf > > Can you identify the members? If so, perhaps BLML will be interested. > I can: Kooijman, Polisner, Endicott, Wignall, Schroeder (aka Kojak), Bavin, Gerard -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071010/1b97ee1e/attachment.htm From schoderb at msn.com Thu Oct 11 02:15:42 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:15:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBFLC References: <200710102046.l9AKkQBK014695@cfa.harvard.edu> <470D5C2D.5060509@skynet.be> Message-ID: It would be more correct to spell my name SCHODER. Mr. Schroeder is no longer closely associated with the WBF, much less the WBFLC. Bill (a.k.a. Kojak) ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBFLC Steve Willner wrote: > Hi, Herman. > > There's a picture of some of the WBFLC at > http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/07_2%20Shanghai/pdf/bul_11.pdf > > Can you identify the members? If so, perhaps BLML will be interested. > I can: Kooijman, Polisner, Endicott, Wignall, Schroeder (aka Kojak), Bavin, Gerard -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071010/1b97ee1e/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 09:46:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:46:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> References: <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071011094217.0283c140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:44 11/10/2007 +0800, David Burn wrote: >[HdW] > >I am sure and certain that the WBFLC did not address this issue. And >if the ACBLLC did, I would be surprised not to have heard about it either. [DB] (explaining the Garozzo case) >Kaplan wrote in the Bridge World many years ago on this topic; his view was >clearly that a pair was under an obligation to explain its agreements even >if it knew that by doing so, it would deceive the opponents as to the actual >cards it held. It seems to me reasonable to infer that the ACBL has at least >tacitly accepted the notion that you must tell your opponents what your bids >mean, not what cards your partner has got. AG : You're right, David, but you address the wrong case. The Garozzo case states that you may not create MI when there is none. (don't we all aagree ?) The dWS idea is that perhaps you may add MI when there is already, especially when not doing so will create other problems. This is a horse of a very different color indeed. So, AFAIC, Herman is right : his theory was not rejected by this case and we're still waiting to see which official position went against his theory. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 09:49:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Afghanistan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071011094731.0283ecc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:48 11/10/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Dealer West, North-South vulnerable > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C(1) 2C(2) Dble(3) 2S >3H(4) Pass ? > >(1) You, East, alert and explain to North (your >screenmate) that 1C shows a hand which a normal >Standard American bidder would either open 1C, or >open 1D. > >(2) North alerts and explains their own call to >you as showing 5/5 in the majors, either weak or >game force. > >(3) You, East, alert and explain to North that >your double shows general values, typically with >a fairly balanced hand. > >(4) You, East, alert and explain to North that >you have an implicit partnership agreement that >3H is a probe for 3NT. However, since North's >2C was showing two suits, not one, you have an >unresolved conflict in your implicit partnership >agreements on whether 3H is showing a stopper, >or alternatively asking for a stopper. > >You, East, hold: > >J983 >K54 >QJ74 >K2 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I bid 3NT, showing a stopper. I'm fortunate enough to have one whatever my partner meant (the probability of J983 not being a stopper, behind the long suit, is small). No second choice. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 09:49:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Afghanistan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20071011094731.0283ecc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:48 11/10/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Dealer West, North-South vulnerable > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C(1) 2C(2) Dble(3) 2S >3H(4) Pass ? > >(1) You, East, alert and explain to North (your >screenmate) that 1C shows a hand which a normal >Standard American bidder would either open 1C, or >open 1D. > >(2) North alerts and explains their own call to >you as showing 5/5 in the majors, either weak or >game force. > >(3) You, East, alert and explain to North that >your double shows general values, typically with >a fairly balanced hand. > >(4) You, East, alert and explain to North that >you have an implicit partnership agreement that >3H is a probe for 3NT. However, since North's >2C was showing two suits, not one, you have an >unresolved conflict in your implicit partnership >agreements on whether 3H is showing a stopper, >or alternatively asking for a stopper. > >You, East, hold: > >J983 >K54 >QJ74 >K2 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I bid 3NT, showing a stopper. I'm fortunate enough to have one whatever my partner meant (the probability of J983 not being a stopper, behind the long suit, is small). No second choice. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 10:01:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:01:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be> <000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> raija wrote: > *** It is irrelevant what partner's hand is - what he holds in his hand has > no effect on what the partnership agreement is. > The question opponents asked and the question we are by law required to > answer is NOT what his hand is, but what the partnership agreement is. > > Of course, I know that, but this is a rule that works in the negative, not in the positive. If partner, say, misbids, and I have told them what our agreement is, then I have not committed MI. But if partner misbids and I also give the wrong information, I have indeed given MI, but that MI will not cause damage. So while technically this is MI, in practice this will be accepted. And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) is IMO a few steps too far. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 10:06:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <003e01c80b8c$aad10090$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com><470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be> <000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be> <003e01c80b8c$aad10090$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470DD97F.2060309@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: (please don't write your comments below the final parts of the message, it gets hidden by some readers - and I can't even reply to it) We are being much too complex about the whole thing. Let's try something very simple: 1) L20F requires an explanation of the auction if requested by an opponent (through the play period). 2) Explanations of the auction are UI under L16A (note that replies to questions are explicitly determined to be a possible source of UI. 3) It is illegal to provide UI to partner (73B1) Therefore: *It is illegal to answer the opponents' questions about your system at all.* There you have it. The ultimate result of Herman's "logic", and the final conclusion reached if you follow the logic of the dWs. Anything you say can be UI, so say nothing but calls or plays in their proper turns. I don't know what game that is, but it's not bridge. You are missing one vital piece here. Giving information that partner already knows is not UI, it is considered (I know - not literally) as AI. Therefore, to answer the questions of opponents with things that partner (is supposed to) know(s), is not forbidden as per L73B1. But for the other pieces of information, yes, L73B1 is one law that prohibits the actions of the MS. Somehow, I suspect that this is not what the lawmakers intended by 73B1. Let's try something different: 1) L20F (and L40) require an explanation of the auction if requested by an opponent (through the play period). Full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements is required. 2) Explanations of the auction are UI under L16A Therefore: *It is both legal and appropriate to provide UI to partner if required to do so by Law.* Notice that I did not refer to 73B1 in the second scenario. It is not relevant, because L73 refers to communications to partner, not communications to the opponents. When such communications to the opponents occur during correct procedure, partner is under an obligation under L16A. The obligation to not take advantage of such a situation is stated in L73C. So, if we simply follow the procedures in Law, we come to the realization that UI is inevitable if we are to have proper disclosure as required by Law. It is also not illegal, unless it is being used as a vehicle to communicate to partner, in which case L73 comes into play. As long as L73 is kept in proper perspective, that it refers to communications to partner and not the opponents, we realize that proper disclosure is not a violation of L73 in any way (although if partner hears and uses such disclosure, it is a grave violation). We also reach the conclusion that L73 is not an excuse for violation of any other Law. Most of us already knew that. I did not, and it's not true anyway. Yes, the information that a MS adept passes to his partner _is UI_. Most of us already knew that. Hirsch Davis -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 10:20:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:20:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470DDCDC.7060902@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Impossible! >> "he fielded a psyche from his partner". >> What the hell that means. >> I give up on Sven. >> Please others, continue to send me reasoned arguments. This does not >> warrant re-reading. > > Last comment from me to enlighten Herman (if he reads this): > of course I read this - you are not in my killfile (which is still empty despite Richard's efforts). > South bid 5D, this was a gross deviation from the agreements within that > partnership. The agreements called for South to show his preference between > the minors. > OK, let's assume that. (**) > Technically this is not a psyche, but only because the deviation from > agreements was not deliberate. There is however nothing in the situation to > make it any different from a true psyche for the opponents. (And I > specifically said so.) > Well, there are some differences, as I will explain below, but for the moment I offer my apology for ridiculizing your statement that it was a psyche. With the correction above, your statement makes sense again. > If North then explains the bid to show 1 Ace instead of giving the correct > explanation (that it was a minor preference) he "fielded" this misbid from > South. > No he did not. He only fields the psyche when he acts upon it, as in the wording of L16 "bases his calls or plays" upon it. L16 does not say anything about explaining. In fact, the player is obliged to reveal the mistake before the lead (if declaring side), something he can only do "based on the UI". > Opponents have now not received the information they are entitled to, namely > that there is a misunderstanding within the partnership. > Yes, I know that, and that irregularity will be dealt with. I often say that this is MI without damage, but I can imagine complicated cases where there is additional damage. I will treat such damage with all due severity. > And what more, if a similar situation occurs another time against the same > players these opponents are not likely to ask for another explanation of 4NT > or the corresponding response from South if it is in minors; they already > have the information that this sequence is ordinary Blackwood. > yes, they will. Because these are honest players, who reveal the mistakes before the lead (or at the end of play). No need to go on about subsequent hands. > These are my main reasons for stating that the effect for opponents of the > misinformation from North is equivalent to North fielding a psyche. > No, it's not, but that's not important. > I understand very well that Herman prefers not to understand this logic, and > I also understand why the duty to always give correct information, even when > a consequence is creation of UI to partner, must be absolute. > Well, you have not given any indication why this _must_ be so. Even without taking out the mistakes in your post, the logic simply is not there. Opponents are misinformed, yes, so what? That misinformation will be corrected at the appropriate time, and if needed, an adjusted score will be given for it. That merely demonstrates that there is a law about MI, not that this law _must be absolute_. You simply have not given any logic. I would like you to detail your ruling about what will happen when North acts as you would have him do. He just says "diamond preference". Please construct the tale from there. Please imagine all actions from all 5 persons at the table (4 players and a TD). Please see that by giving UI, the final result will be far worse for NS. I will allow you four days for that task, since you'll be watching Shanghai probably. (message to all Americans - us Europeans stick together) (second message to all Americans - us Europeans even support Indonesia) > Sven > (**) We assume that South misbids. We never talk about South bidding correctly and North being mistaken in the system. Add the cases where NS don't have a system and were merely trying to make themselves understood and you'll see that this problem has many more angles that we haven't yet tackled. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 10:34:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:34:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002301c80ba7$2bccb8a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be><004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <002301c80ba7$2bccb8a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470DE02C.3000101@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> >>> North1 has used UI from partner's explantion of Blackwood to convert the >>> actual meaning of the bid to Blackwood, regardless of what North1 >>> originally >>> believed the actual system to be. This NS can now have a Blackwood >>> auction >>> that might even get to a correct contract, when in fact the wheels have >>> fallen off. These are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. >>> >> Hirsh, sorry, but that is not the case. >> North1 has used UI, true, to give an explanation. L16 does not >> prohibit this. >> I have not said anything about North1's next bid. It is under the same >> restrictions as North2 and North3. >> >> OTOH, North2 and North3 have told their partner that 4NT was not >> Blackwood. Those are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. >> > > And I thought I was going to get out of this thread... > > A cheat is someone who uses an infraction to his advantage (when that > advantage is not permitted by law). > > North1 knows that the auction has come off of the tracks, and is headed for > misunderstanding hell. However, he has now converted it to a Blackwood > auction. > Sorry Hirsh, no he hasn't. North(1) has explained something to his opponents in a way that: a) was true as to south's intention (south did show -and has- one ace) b) prevented UI to be passed to south North(1) will next make a call exactly the same as North(2) and (3), without resorting to the UI he has (about South having one ace but not necessarily diamonds). North(1) will then reveal (before the lead or after the play) to the table that his original 4NT was misexplained and accept his ruling on MI about that, also accepting that his calls be checked for use of UI. At no time has North cheated. Of course if you believe that North(1) would take the opportunity of saying "1 ace" to hide the fact that he intended 4NT as minors, then you are correct in saying that North(1) is a cheat. > What should happen at this point is that he answers truly and ethically, as > North3 did. The TD is likely summoned, and can monitor the auction to > insure that neither player takes advantage of the UI. North3 has not told > partner anything. He has told the opponents what his partner's bid means > systemically. His partner is now obligated to treat this as UI, and > continue the auction as though it were a Blackwood auction even though he > knows it is not. You use MI, which is explicitly forbidden, to keep partner > asleep. But there is absolutely no need to keep an ethical and law-abiding > partner asleep. He'll do it himself. There is a need to give the opponents > a full explanation of the true systemic meaning of your partner's call. > > Calling a novice (North2) a cheat is silliness, and you deserve far more > contempt than you've received on this list for even making the suggestion. A > novice will have no idea what to do, and calling the TD is exactly the right > thing. The TD will then tell him his responsibility to disclose partnership > agreements and monitor the auction. > Indeed. I apologise to North2. > North4 is not a cheat, because he has created a L75 situation that mandates > the presence of the TD, who will insure that his side gets no advantage from > his infraction. However, a disciplinary penalty would certainly be in > order. > > It is only North1, our intrepid dWs follower, who has committed an illegal > action that could work to his advantage. There's your cheat. > No Hirsh, any North who decides to hide the fact that 4NT was intended as minors, is a cheat. Such a cheat would act as North1, certainly, but that does not make North1 a cheat. Not if North1 subsequently acts as he should (as described above). You dealt with North2 and North4 above, saying they are not cheats. And you would be right. You said nothing about North3 however. We agree, I hope, that L75D2 prevents him from saying anything. Yet he wants to communicate to partner that wheels have come off. If we forget the example for just one moment (in which North should really pass 5Di), and we imagine that North realizes he has to make a call which partner will again misinterpret, putting them very wrong indeed, then we will see that North would really like to wake partner up. He cannot do so in any legal way, but he is rescued by his opponent, who asks for the meaning. He can now quietly say the "true" meaning, thereby waking up partner. With less able opponents and directors, he might even get away with it. After all, he has merely answered truthfully to a question, has he not? Well, that's why I call North3 a cheat! He knows L75D2 tells him "nor shall he reveal in any manner that a mistake has been made", and he does so anyway. OK? > Hirsch Davis > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 10:38:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:38:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: <200710102046.l9AKkQBK014695@cfa.harvard.edu> <470D5C2D.5060509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <470DE106.4020905@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It would be more correct to spell my name SCHODER. Mr. Schroeder is no > longer closely associated with the WBF, much less the WBFLC. > Sorry Bill. I always try to spell names right, but in your case I have so little practice at seeing the right one. I'll call you Kojak from now on. And I do remember Herr Schroeder as well. > Bill (a.k.a. Kojak) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 11 10:56:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c80be4$8f0e0990$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > raija wrote: > > > *** It is irrelevant what partner's hand is - what he holds in his hand > has > > no effect on what the partnership agreement is. > > The question opponents asked and the question we are by law required to > > answer is NOT what his hand is, but what the partnership agreement is. > > > > > > Of course, I know that, but this is a rule that works in the negative, > not in the positive. > If partner, say, misbids, and I have told them what our agreement is, > then I have not committed MI. > But if partner misbids and I also give the wrong information, I have > indeed given MI, but that MI will not cause damage. > So while technically this is MI, in practice this will be accepted. And how do you handle the situation when later against the same opponents exactly the same auction occurs except that this time your partner remembers your agreements and bids accordingly? Opponents will remember the explanations given the first time and not want to disturb unnecessarily by requesting that same explanation repeated, only to discover that this time the information they have is indeed incorrect and misleading. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 12:29:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:29:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001401c80be4$8f0e0990$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c80be4$8f0e0990$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470DFB07.6020601@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> raija wrote: >> >>> *** It is irrelevant what partner's hand is - what he holds in his hand >> has >>> no effect on what the partnership agreement is. >>> The question opponents asked and the question we are by law required to >>> answer is NOT what his hand is, but what the partnership agreement is. >>> >>> >> Of course, I know that, but this is a rule that works in the negative, >> not in the positive. >> If partner, say, misbids, and I have told them what our agreement is, >> then I have not committed MI. >> But if partner misbids and I also give the wrong information, I have >> indeed given MI, but that MI will not cause damage. >> So while technically this is MI, in practice this will be accepted. > > And how do you handle the situation when later against the same opponents > exactly the same auction occurs except that this time your partner remembers > your agreements and bids accordingly? > > Opponents will remember the explanations given the first time and not want > to disturb unnecessarily by requesting that same explanation repeated, only > to discover that this time the information they have is indeed incorrect and > misleading. > I don't have to solve that problem - since I am going to explain everything when this board is done (or before the lead). I don't know which problem you are talking about after that? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 11 14:47:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:47:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9B36E302-D8B2-4A82-BB8A-E8E2156349BD@starpower.net> On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Impossible! >> "he fielded a psyche from his partner". >> What the hell that means. >> I give up on Sven. >> Please others, continue to send me reasoned arguments. This does not >> warrant re-reading. > > Last comment from me to enlighten Herman (if he reads this): > > South bid 5D, this was a gross deviation from the agreements within > that > partnership. The agreements called for South to show his preference > between > the minors. > > Technically this is not a psyche, but only because the deviation from > agreements was not deliberate. There is however nothing in the > situation to > make it any different from a true psyche for the opponents. (And I > specifically said so.) > > If North then explains the bid to show 1 Ace instead of giving the > correct > explanation (that it was a minor preference) he "fielded" this > misbid from > South. > > Opponents have now not received the information they are entitled > to, namely > that there is a misunderstanding within the partnership. > > And what more, if a similar situation occurs another time against > the same > players these opponents are not likely to ask for another > explanation of 4NT > or the corresponding response from South if it is in minors; they > already > have the information that this sequence is ordinary Blackwood. > > These are my main reasons for stating that the effect for opponents > of the > misinformation from North is equivalent to North fielding a psyche. > > I understand very well that Herman prefers not to understand this > logic, and > I also understand why the duty to always give correct information, > even when > a consequence is creation of UI to partner, must be absolute. Sven may have hit on the explanation as to why the "De Wael school" argument has been opposed so viscerally and instinctively by so many members of this forum. The action it calls for is identical to that of an outright cheat determined to hide from his opponents the fact that he and his partner have had a bidding misunderstanding. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Oct 11 15:05:36 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:05:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com><470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361><470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361><470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be> <000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c80c07$6a4f85c0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > Of course, I know that, but this is a rule that works in the negative, > not in the positive. > If partner, say, misbids, and I have told them what our agreement is, > then I have not committed MI. > But if partner misbids and I also give the wrong information, I have > indeed given MI, but that MI will not cause damage. > So while technically this is MI, in practice this will be accepted. > Oh well, as long as I'm back in this thread... You believe, but do not know, that your MI will not cause damage. If an opponent can show that the MI influenced his defence adversely, it caused damage even though the MI may have described your partner's hand exactly. And of course, your MI may allow an auction to proceed in an altered, but somewhat normal fashion, even though it has gone completely off the track and should be monitored by a TD to insure that the oppnonents have a correct explanation of your system and that no bids are influenced by UI. Hirsch Davis From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 11 15:22:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:22:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470DFB07.6020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c80c09$d6f1a9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: .............. > > And how do you handle the situation when later against > > the same opponents exactly the same auction occurs > > except that this time your partner remembers your > > agreements and bids accordingly? > > > > Opponents will remember the explanations given the > > first time and not want to disturb unnecessarily by > > requesting that same explanation repeated, only to > > discover that this time the information they have > > is indeed incorrect and misleading. > > > > I don't have to solve that problem - since I am going to explain > everything when this board is done (or before the lead). > I don't know which problem you are talking about after that? None at all. But please be aware that this is the first time I see any indication whatsoever that North1 would reveal the true agreements in "due" time. However, for the record: I still maintain that answering the question related to the 4NT bid and answering the question related to the 5Di bid are two separate actions. Both answers must be correct descriptions of the partnership agreements (to the best ability of the player giving his answer). When judging cases like this (and many other cases) I prefer to ask myself: "What would have happened if screens were in use", and base my ruling of correct procedure on that condition. With screens there is no possibility for a North1 event at all; North3 is the only possible alternative (excluding North2 and North4 as rather irrelevant for the main question). And nothing has changed my opinion away from North3 (but of course also North2) being the only acceptable scenario. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 15:41:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:41:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000c01c80c07$6a4f85c0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com><470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361><470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361><470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be> <000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> <000c01c80c07$6a4f85c0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <470E2813.3060701@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > >> Of course, I know that, but this is a rule that works in the negative, >> not in the positive. >> If partner, say, misbids, and I have told them what our agreement is, >> then I have not committed MI. >> But if partner misbids and I also give the wrong information, I have >> indeed given MI, but that MI will not cause damage. >> So while technically this is MI, in practice this will be accepted. >> > > Oh well, as long as I'm back in this thread... > > You believe, but do not know, that your MI will not cause damage. If an > opponent can show that the MI influenced his defence adversely, it caused > damage even though the MI may have described your partner's hand exactly. > And of course, your MI may allow an auction to proceed in an altered, but > somewhat normal fashion, even though it has gone completely off the track > and should be monitored by a TD to insure that the oppnonents have a correct > explanation of your system and that no bids are influenced by UI. > > Hirsch Davis > Oh, I understand that. And I don't use it as an argument as to why I should be allowed to give MI. But I do use it as an argument against you guys, when you state again and again that MI is a worse crime than UI. Apart from other arguments there, I want to stress that this particular MI is damaging in only very exceptionally cases. Most of the time (in dWS cases) the "MI" that I give is very minimal. In fact, I believe that the MI that a strict application of the MS would give is far more damaging (I mean that if you don't also explain the Blackwood responses, you have not told them something they are entitled to know - his number of aces). So please understand that I don't want to use as an argument the fact that the MI is only small - it is only small, certainly, but that does not condone the giving of MI. It is the relative strength of the 2 infractions that I want to compare. You Hirsh, have been the only one so far to have given a relative argument. Your argument that (North in this case) MUST correct the MI he has given, whereas he only MAY NOT indicate that something has gone wrong, is possibly a valid one. I do believe that there are other arguments (many of them) in the other direction, but I await your further offerings. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 15:47:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:47:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <9B36E302-D8B2-4A82-BB8A-E8E2156349BD@starpower.net> References: <000201c80b89$b7bad900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <9B36E302-D8B2-4A82-BB8A-E8E2156349BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <470E2958.7000301@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Sven may have hit on the explanation as to why the "De Wael school" > argument has been opposed so viscerally and instinctively by so many > members of this forum. The action it calls for is identical to that > of an outright cheat determined to hide from his opponents the fact > that he and his partner have had a bidding misunderstanding. > If that is the case, then let me stress unequivocally that an adept of the dWS may act, at first, in the same manner as would a cheat, but that his actions further on will clarify to all and sundry that he is not a cheat. He will, first of all, make a call which is not based on the UI that he has received (and he will not even choose from among actions that are not based on the UI those actions which would clarify the UI to partner most easily). He will, secondly, clarify everything (including his own MI) at the moment set out in L75D2. If anyone had any doubts as to my honesty, or the honesty of the people I would advise, then please drop them. In fact, my advice sounds as follows: "Whenever your partner gives an explanation which does not conform to the meaning you intended with your bid, you should bid on according to the system you thought you were playing, and you should explain his bids according to the system he apparently thinks he is playing" Notice that in this advice, I do not talk about the actual system. That system may well be unknown to the player. > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Thu Oct 11 16:19:12 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:19:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if > it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) > is IMO a few steps too far. > > Read again. Those are not my words. Do not rephrase someone else's text and boldly claim they said it! As far as my writings go, in a forum like like this, I request the courtesy that you quote me *as is* and *in its original form* without putting words in my mouth I have not said. Raija From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 16:31:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:31:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000a01c80c09$d6f1a9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c80c09$d6f1a9e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470E33DE.4050900@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: > .............. >>> And how do you handle the situation when later against >>> the same opponents exactly the same auction occurs >>> except that this time your partner remembers your >>> agreements and bids accordingly? >>> >>> Opponents will remember the explanations given the >>> first time and not want to disturb unnecessarily by >>> requesting that same explanation repeated, only to >>> discover that this time the information they have >>> is indeed incorrect and misleading. >>> >> I don't have to solve that problem - since I am going to explain >> everything when this board is done (or before the lead). >> I don't know which problem you are talking about after that? > > None at all. But please be aware that this is the first time I see any > indication whatsoever that North1 would reveal the true agreements in "due" > time. OK, I shall attribute this to your not having read all my posts about this in the last 10 years. I must have mentioned it several times however. So that is one problem solved, at least. Not the last one, apparently: > > However, for the record: I still maintain that answering the question > related to the 4NT bid and answering the question related to the 5Di bid are > two separate actions. Both answers must be correct descriptions of the > partnership agreements (to the best ability of the player giving his > answer). > This is silly - those are actions by two different players, of course they are separate. The problem is that (in this case, North) has to keep quiet about the mistake that South has made, while at the same time he has to correctly explain the next bid. That is an impossibility, and it is that problem we are trying to solve. One way to look at it is: -if North wants to avoid giving UI, the only correct answer is "one ace" (everything else reveals that a mistake has been made) -if North wants to avoid giving MI, the only correct answer is "diamond preference, but actually one ace" (since EW are entitled to know what Blackwood responses are used). This means that the MS response is actually the same as the dWS response, but with one addition. This addition (diamond preference) has no bearing on the actual holding or intention of South, so omitting should be preferred to handing out the UI. > When judging cases like this (and many other cases) I prefer to ask myself: > "What would have happened if screens were in use", and base my ruling of > correct procedure on that condition. > So do I, but sadly that won't work in this case, as North will not have heard South's explanation, so he does not know he's in this case, and he cannot give South any UI, since his explanation will not become known to South. > With screens there is no possibility for a North1 event at all; North3 is > the only possible alternative (excluding North2 and North4 as rather > irrelevant for the main question). And nothing has changed my opinion away > from North3 (but of course also North2) being the only acceptable scenario. > Useless as an argument, since the basic premise: the mistaken explanation to the whole table, is absent. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 11 19:06:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:06:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be> <001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470E5822.2040504@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if >> it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) >> is IMO a few steps too far. >> >> > > Read again. Those are not my words. > > Do not rephrase someone else's text and boldly claim they said it! As far > as my writings go, in a forum like like this, I request the courtesy that > you quote me *as is* and *in its original form* without putting words in my > mouth I have not said. > OK Raija, not your words, someone elses in any case - not mine (which was what I wanted to say) Sorry about that. The point remains though that this is MI, not something worse. IMO. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 00:31:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:31:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <470D597E.70902@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >"Herman, you have been found guilty of the crime of not giving UI. >I shall now rule as if you had given UI, and I will not allow your >partner to wake up, even when he has just shown that he did not >need the UI to wake up in the first place". >Do you really believe that this is what the rules say? Richard Hills: Yes. Law 75 footnote, final paragraph: >>In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows >>that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is >>"unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be >>careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he >>does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, >>if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised >>information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in >>either major suit; but South's ***responsibility*** is to act as >>though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, >>showing maximum values. Richard Hills: In the past, Herman has argued that an advantage that the De Wael School has over the Majority School is that Majority Schoolers are sometimes forced to damage their ethical partners by giving UI to that ethical partner who then ethically applies Law 73C and chooses a non-preferred logical alternative, because their preferred logical alternative (which would lead to a better result) is now an illegal Law 16 demonstrably suggested logical alternative. Ergo, Herman says this is a great argument for the De Wael School, since De Wael Schoolers get slightly better results than Majority Schoolers. Herman De Wael: >So then we have come to the crunch question. What I do appears to >be illegal to all of you, yet if I do it, there is nothing you can >do about it? Richard Hills: Think again. In my opinion, Herman's "great" argument is actually a "grate" argument If: (a) Herman is playing in a walk-in pairs where the Director has used Law 81C5 to interpret the Laws such that the Majority School is the official interpretation, and (b) in accordance with Law 81C5 the Director has advised the assembled players of that official Majority School interpretation, _if (and only if)_ (c) Mister Herman De Wael (well known international Director and future member of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee) was naive enough to continue to apply the De Wael School philosophy in that walk-in pairs, _then (and only then)_ (d) Mister Herman De Wael (well known international Director and future member of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee) has chosen to cheat. 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 02:47:55 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:47:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <470D597E.70902@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >"Herman, you have been found guilty of the crime of not giving UI. > >I shall now rule as if you had given UI, and I will not allow your > >partner to wake up, even when he has just shown that he did not > >need the UI to wake up in the first place". > >Do you really believe that this is what the rules say? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Law 75 footnote, final paragraph: > > >>In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows > >>that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is > >>"unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be > >>careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he > >>does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, > >>if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised > >>information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in > >>either major suit; but South's ***responsibility*** is to act as > >>though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, > >>showing maximum values. > Please pardon me, Richard, but I don't see even a ghost of a trace of any substantiation of your amazing claim in this footnote which you offer as proof. Perhaps I don't see it because there is none; or perhaps you can explain it a little more: Which phrase is your "found guilty" part? Which phrase is your "now rule" part? Which phrase is the one that where you get the fun of ruling that someone who you admit has no UI nevertheless has UI? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 03:53:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:53:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 75 footnote, final paragraph: >>In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows >>that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is >>"unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be >>careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he >>does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, >>if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised >>information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in >>either major suit; but South's ***responsibility*** is to act as >>though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, >>showing maximum values. Jerry Fusselman asked: >Please pardon me, Richard, but I don't see even a ghost of a trace >of any substantiation of your amazing claim in this footnote which >you offer as proof. Perhaps I don't see it because there is none; >or perhaps you can explain it a little more: Which phrase is your >"found guilty" part? Richard Hills: The "found guilty" part is Law 72B2: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." Richard Hills: Acolytes of the De Wael School self-incriminatingly admit that they infringe Law 75C and Law 75D1 intentionally. Those acolytes try to mitigate their Law 72B2 "found guilty" infraction by arguing that the Majority School is wrong. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, that mitigation cuts no ice in the majority of tournaments where the Regulating Authorities deem that the Majority School is valid. Jerry Fusselman: >Which phrase is your "now rule" part? Which phrase is the one that >where you get the fun of ruling that someone who you admit has no >UI nevertheless has UI? Richard Hills: Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a ***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to ethically kamikaze into -1100. (Believe me, I know how it feels. In my salad days of playing the HUM system Forcing Pass Relay I frequently had to knowingly march towards -1100 when I gained UI that a wheel had fallen off.) Meanwhile, at another table, a De Wael School North chooses to take the illegal action of deliberately infracting Law 75C and Law 75D1, so chooses to describe South's misbid instead of choosing the Law 75C and Law 75D1 requirement to describe the different North-South partnership understanding. At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled to take as their ***responsibility***. Ergo, North's illegal De Wael School action damaged East-West, since legal Majority School action would give East-West +1100, so the score has to be adjusted to NS -1100, EW +1100. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 05:18:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:18:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spending a Penny (was Obviously...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 75 footnote, final paragraph: >>In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows >>that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is >>"unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be >>careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he >>does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, >>if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised >>information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in >>either major suit; but South's ***responsibility*** is to act as >>though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, >>showing maximum values. Richard Hills: >Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, >the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a >***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's >initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember >their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to >ethically kamikaze into -1100. > >(Believe me, I know how it feels. In my salad days of playing the >HUM system Forcing Pass Relay I frequently had to knowingly march >towards -1100 when I gained UI that a wheel had fallen off.) Richard Hills: Rereading this takes me down memory lane. Although my first bridge was played in the provincial backwater of Hobart in Tasmania, as chance would have it the Tasmanian Bridge Association had as its Chief Director one of Australia's greatest ever Directors, the late Roger Penny. I was fortunate as a know-it-all 22-year-old that Roger took time to mentor me on the Laws and Ethics, and it was he who first tutored me about the implications of the final paragraph of the Law 75 footnote. Later he was the founding President of the Australian Bridge Directors Association, thus responsible for educating many Directors (both in Australia and in the Rest of the World) when he convinced Queensland Chief Director Reg Busch to expand his local banana-bender Directors' newsletter into the national ABDA Directors' Bulletin. It was because Roger stimulated my interest in the Laws and Ethics of bridge that in recent years my bridge career has taken the road less travelled - rather than concentrating on winning yet another Aussie national championship I have instead strived for a new heart's desire of becoming primus inter pares of this mailing list. And Roger Penny's ultimate legacy to me was that over a year ago I was consequently invited to join a prestigious, confidential and now (finally) completed project. Thanks, Roger. I am sure that at that heavenly bridge tournament you now direct there are not any infractions of Law 75, and that you have no need to use your trademark bellow, "QUIET PLEASE!!!" 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 Oct 12 05:51:18 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:51:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 75 footnote, final paragraph: > > >>In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows > >>that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is > >>"unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be > >>careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he > >>does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, > >>if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised > >>information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in > >>either major suit; but South's ***responsibility*** is to act as > >>though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, > >>showing maximum values. > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >Please pardon me, Richard, but I don't see even a ghost of a trace > >of any substantiation of your amazing claim in this footnote which > >you offer as proof. Perhaps I don't see it because there is none; > >or perhaps you can explain it a little more: Which phrase is your > >"found guilty" part? > > Richard Hills: > > The "found guilty" part is Law 72B2: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." No one disputes this. What Herman is saying---please recall---is that both schools require breaking a law. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to disprove Herman's contention that MS also breaks the laws rather than arguing precisely what Herman agrees with and has granted all along? Every time I read someone complaining that dWS recommends breaking one of the laws it seems to me yet another case where the supporters of MS don't understand Herman's position anywhere near as well as he understands theirs. Usually one does not spend a lot time proving what the other side has already admitted scores of times. > > Richard Hills: > > Acolytes of the De Wael School self-incriminatingly admit that they > infringe Law 75C and Law 75D1 intentionally. Those acolytes try to > mitigate their Law 72B2 "found guilty" infraction by arguing that > the Majority School is wrong. Since ignorance of the law is no > excuse, that mitigation cuts no ice in the majority of tournaments > where the Regulating Authorities deem that the Majority School is > valid. > The MS is the BLML MS---which carries no regulatory authority. Has there been a clear and specific regulatory statement supporting either side? What I have read so far is quite general and not yet clear enough to cover the specific cases Herman brings up. I doubt there is a statement for ACBL land, for example. > Jerry Fusselman: > > >Which phrase is your "now rule" part? Which phrase is the one that > >where you get the fun of ruling that someone who you admit has no > >UI nevertheless has UI? > > Richard Hills: > > Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, > the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a > ***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's > initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember > their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to > ethically kamikaze into -1100. > I think both sides realize this full well. But Herman's way makes this unauthorized reminding about half as likely than with MS. This quote seems to support dWS more than MS. At least we should be able to agree that dWS makes unauthorized reminding far less likely. > (Believe me, I know how it feels. In my salad days of playing the > HUM system Forcing Pass Relay I frequently had to knowingly march > towards -1100 when I gained UI that a wheel had fallen off.) > By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL nationals IMP games that the laws state that when the wheels start falling off the opponent's auction and they then use UI to get themselves back on track, the most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable board is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. I wish there was something in the laws, or the upcoming appendix, to fix this misunderstanding on their part. I think it should be made clear that the 3 or 4 IMP assigned score does not apply to cases after blatant use of UI to avoid 1100-point disasters. > Meanwhile, at another table, a De Wael School North chooses to take > the illegal action of deliberately infracting Law 75C and Law 75D1, > so chooses to describe South's misbid instead of choosing the Law > 75C and Law 75D1 requirement to describe the different North-South > partnership understanding. > This begs the question in exactly the same way you did earlier in this post. A crucial, oft-repeated dWS point is that one will deliberately infract a law either way. You are simply ignoring the MS deliberate infraction. If you can prove that MS involves no infraction, you win. When you prove that dWS does, you just wasted time. > At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South > voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- > stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled > to take as their ***responsibility***. I don't see why this is relevant to our point. If no UI was provided by someone using dWS, then how did his partner use UI? Don't you agree that dWS gives more MI and less UI, while MS gives more UI and less MI? What you quote here has to do with UI, not MI, so it is more likely to be a problem with MS. > > Ergo, North's illegal De Wael School action damaged East-West, since > legal Majority School action would give East-West +1100, so the > score has to be adjusted to NS -1100, EW +1100. > > What's the problem? > I will list three. First, as I have mentioned above, you are not addressing the illegal MS action you want players to follow. Second, there is no law that says MS is perfect and the only way. Third, there is no law that states what you claim---that if you failed to provide the UI that MS would have you provide, then you must be ruled against as if you provided UI and partner illegally used it. I wonder if even one MS supporter besides yourself would go that far---to say that a case devoid of illegal use of UI must be ruled as if it had illegal use of UI. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 12 06:48:33 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> [HdW] OTOH, North2 and North3 have told their partner that 4NT was not Blackwood. Those are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. [DALB] No, they haven't. South2 and South3 are presumed to be deaf when North2 and North3 speak. If they give any indication that they have heard what their partners say, then they are cheating - but North2 and North3 have committed no infraction. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 12 06:57:24 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:57:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470D597E.70902@skynet.be> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> <470D597E.70902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c80c8c$616b35f0$2441a1d0$@com> [DALB] > Of course, this may require superhuman feats of doublethink by players - but > these are not impossible. I recall a deal from a late round of the Spring > Foursomes, a major English competition, a great many years ago. David Price > and I bid the North-South cards (it does not matter what they were) thus: > > West North East South > Burn Price > 2D (1) 2NT (2) Pass 3D (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 4C (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 6D (7) > Pass 6H (8) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Multi > (2) Price played this as minors, a suggestion that I had vetoed (we were a > new partnership), but he alerted it because he was convinced that my veto > was not in force for this event. [HdW] and you meant it as natural, so not alertable. OK, then you had UI. [DALB] > (3) I, who was convinced that my veto was in force for this event, altered > 3D because it was a transfer to hearts. At no time did our opponents ask any > questions. Here we were in the position I described in an earlier post - > although we were not giving explanations, our alerts in themselves would > misinform our opponents, but neither of us knew who was doing the > misinforming since we both genuinely did not know what our actual methods > were, and we could not therefore apply L75D2. [HdW] He intended 3Di as preference, which would not be alertable. You OTOH, had to interpret this as transfer to hearts, which would be alertable. Now you did break L75D2 by alerting. OK? [DALB] Not OK at all. As I have said, neither of us knew which of us was following our actual agreement. Law 75D2 required me to summon the director only if I knew that I had given a misexplanation (technically a mis-alert), but I did not know this. Similarly, Law 75D2 required Price to summon the director only if he knew he had given a misexplanation, but he did not know this. Neither of us therefore broke Law 75D2. [HdW] Now David. Suppose I had been sitting in your seat, and I had not alerted 3Di, and my Price had woken up, and there had been no UI. What would you have ruled? [DALB] Six hearts doubled down six. What else? David Burn London, England From mustikka at charter.net Fri Oct 12 07:08:09 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:08:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be><001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470E5822.2040504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c80c8d$e21b6f70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>> And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if >>> it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) >>> is IMO a few steps too far. >>> >>> >> >> Read again. Those are not my words. >> >> Do not rephrase someone else's text and boldly claim they said it! As >> far >> as my writings go, in a forum like like this, I request the courtesy >> that >> you quote me *as is* and *in its original form* without putting words in >> my >> mouth I have not said. >> > > OK Raija, not your words, someone elses in any case - not mine (which > was what I wanted to say) > Sorry about that. > > The point remains though that this is MI, not something worse. IMO. > I agree that it is MI, but deliberately giving a false explanation of one's agreements is not the same as simple accidental MI. Trying to gain an advantage by the false explanation, ie. deliberate MI, is a serious offense, both by the Laws and by common ethics. The advantage sought in this case is that partner would not be under UI restrictions during the auction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 07:53:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:53:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >What Herman is saying---please recall---is that >both schools require breaking a law. Wouldn't >your time be better spent trying to disprove >Herman's contention that MS also breaks the >laws rather than arguing precisely what Herman >agrees with and has granted all along? Richard Hills: As earlier noted, the De Wael School cannot be disproved because the De Wael School is designed to be incapable of disproof, due to an axiom of the De Wael School being that the Laws must be interpreted in a self-contradictory way. For most members of the Majority School that De Wael School axiom is self-evidently absurd. But any attempt to disprove that De Wael School axiom is doomed to failure - see the quote from Isaac Asimov's short story "Reason" in an earlier thread. Better still, go out and buy then read Isaac Asimov's collection "I, Robot", which contains the short story "Reason". If Jerry is still seeking something tangible which justifies the Majority School, then he might try reading the WBF Code of Practice, which is much more lucid about the principles underpinning bridge than the dog's breakfast of the 1997 Lawbook. For example -> 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." What's the (rhetorical) problem? The non-rhetorical answer is that there will be no problem for ANZAC bridge players on and after February 2008, since that is the month (according to information from a senior ABF Director) that Aussies and Kiwis will see the De Wael School formally flung into the dustbin of history. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 09:36:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:36:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000901c80c8d$e21b6f70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be><001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470E5822.2040504@skynet.be> <000901c80c8d$e21b6f70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470F23FE.7050201@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:06 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>>> And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if >>>> it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) >>>> is IMO a few steps too far. >>>> >>>> >>> Read again. Those are not my words. >>> >>> Do not rephrase someone else's text and boldly claim they said it! As >>> far >>> as my writings go, in a forum like like this, I request the courtesy >>> that >>> you quote me *as is* and *in its original form* without putting words in >>> my >>> mouth I have not said. >>> >> OK Raija, not your words, someone elses in any case - not mine (which >> was what I wanted to say) >> Sorry about that. >> >> The point remains though that this is MI, not something worse. IMO. >> > > I agree that it is MI, but deliberately giving a false explanation of one's > agreements is not the same as simple accidental MI. Trying to gain an > advantage by the false explanation, ie. deliberate MI, is a serious offense, > both by the Laws and by common ethics. The advantage sought in this case is > that partner would not be under UI restrictions during the auction. > Indeed. Advantage sought and found. But what is the alternative? Deliberately giving UI? Isn't that just as bad? I find that a serious offense as well. And the aim of this thread is not about agreeing that something is a serious offense, we already about that. The aim of this thread is to find out which is the more serious offense. By stating that one set of actions is "a serious offense", you bring nothing to this thread unless you also say how serious you find the other offense. And then preferably not just by your own opionion (because my opinion is just as valid as yours), but by referring to law numbers, sentences, and WBF philosophy. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 09:37:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:37:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> Message-ID: <470F242D.40500@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > OTOH, North2 and North3 have told their partner that 4NT was not > Blackwood. Those are in fact the actions of a downright cheat. > > [DALB] > > No, they haven't. South2 and South3 are presumed to be deaf when North2 and > North3 speak. If they give any indication that they have heard what their > partners say, then they are cheating - but North2 and North3 have committed > no infraction. David: L75D2, L73B1 > > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 09:39:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:39:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000101c80c8c$616b35f0$2441a1d0$@com> References: <470A1ED8.1090202@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20071009110514.028dae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <470CE6F6.1030802@skynet.be> <000301c80b5c$e40ca5b0$ac25f110$@com> <470D597E.70902@skynet.be> <000101c80c8c$616b35f0$2441a1d0$@com> Message-ID: <470F24BB.3070407@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [DALB] > >> Of course, this may require superhuman feats of doublethink by players - > but >> these are not impossible. I recall a deal from a late round of the Spring >> Foursomes, a major English competition, a great many years ago. David > Price >> and I bid the North-South cards (it does not matter what they were) thus: >> >> West North East South >> Burn Price >> 2D (1) 2NT (2) Pass 3D (3) >> Pass 3H (4) Pass 4C (5) >> Pass 4H (6) Pass 6D (7) >> Pass 6H (8) Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> (1) Multi >> (2) Price played this as minors, a suggestion that I had vetoed (we were a >> new partnership), but he alerted it because he was convinced that my veto >> was not in force for this event. > > [HdW] > > and you meant it as natural, so not alertable. OK, then you had UI. > > [DALB] > >> (3) I, who was convinced that my veto was in force for this event, altered >> 3D because it was a transfer to hearts. At no time did our opponents ask > any >> questions. Here we were in the position I described in an earlier post - >> although we were not giving explanations, our alerts in themselves would >> misinform our opponents, but neither of us knew who was doing the >> misinforming since we both genuinely did not know what our actual methods >> were, and we could not therefore apply L75D2. > > [HdW] > > He intended 3Di as preference, which would not be alertable. > You OTOH, had to interpret this as transfer to hearts, which would be > alertable. > Now you did break L75D2 by alerting. OK? > > [DALB] > > Not OK at all. As I have said, neither of us knew which of us was following > our actual agreement. Law 75D2 required me to summon the director only if I > knew that I had given a misexplanation (technically a mis-alert), but I did > not know this. Similarly, Law 75D2 required Price to summon the director > only if he knew he had given a misexplanation, but he did not know this. > Neither of us therefore broke Law 75D2. > > [HdW] > > Now David. Suppose I had been sitting in your seat, and I had not > alerted 3Di, and my Price had woken up, and there had been no UI. What > would you have ruled? > > [DALB] > > Six hearts doubled down six. What else? > David rules that my partner, who did not have UI, would not have been able to work out that a wheel had come off, if he would have had UI. David rules that I have broken a law (which one) that tells me I must give UI, and he then rules that my partner would not have been able to bid what he did bid now, without UI. The crime of not transmitting UI! And you think I am saying strange things? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 09:51:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:51:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470F2776.9000600@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The "found guilty" part is Law 72B2: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." > > Richard Hills: > > Acolytes of the De Wael School self-incriminatingly admit that they > infringe Law 75C and Law 75D1 intentionally. Acolytes of the MS self-delusionally refuse to admit that they infringe L73B1 and L75D2 intentionally. > Those acolytes try to > mitigate their Law 72B2 "found guilty" infraction by arguing that > the Majority School is wrong. Those acolytes try to mitigate their infraction by argueing that they have no alternative, since the dWS is wrong. > Since ignorance of the law is no > excuse, that mitigation cuts no ice in the majority of tournaments > where the Regulating Authorities deem that the Majority School is > valid. > Since ignorance ... > Jerry Fusselman: > >> Which phrase is your "now rule" part? Which phrase is the one that >> where you get the fun of ruling that someone who you admit has no >> UI nevertheless has UI? > > Richard Hills: > > Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, > the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a > ***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's > initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember > their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to > ethically kamikaze into -1100. > > (Believe me, I know how it feels. In my salad days of playing the > HUM system Forcing Pass Relay I frequently had to knowingly march > towards -1100 when I gained UI that a wheel had fallen off.) > > Meanwhile, at another table, a De Wael School North chooses to take > the illegal action of deliberately infracting Law 75C and Law 75D1, > so chooses to describe South's misbid instead of choosing the Law > 75C and Law 75D1 requirement to describe the different North-South > partnership understanding. > > At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South > voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- > stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled > to take as their ***responsibility***. > But this South did not have any UI, so why should he be barred from remembering? > Ergo, North's illegal De Wael School action damaged East-West, since > legal Majority School action would give East-West +1100, so the > score has to be adjusted to NS -1100, EW +1100. > Only if the dWS is judged illegal! Which it is not! Or rather: the illegality concerns a MI, not the non-existant crime of "not giving UI". There are two laws which specifically forbid giving UI, but you are going to rule against someone who has omitted to give UI? Do you not see that this is ridiculous? You have painted yourself in such a corner, that, rather than admit the horrible fact that Herman might be right, you invent new laws and applications that are simply against the spirit of bridge! > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 12 09:56:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:56:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470F28B8.4030801@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > No one disputes this. What Herman is saying---please recall---is that > both schools require breaking a law. Wouldn't your time be better > spent trying to disprove Herman's contention that MS also breaks the > laws rather than arguing precisely what Herman agrees with and has > granted all along? Every time I read someone complaining that dWS > recommends breaking one of the laws it seems to me yet another case > where the supporters of MS don't understand Herman's position anywhere > near as well as he understands theirs. Usually one does not spend a > lot time proving what the other side has already admitted scores of > times. > A voice of sanity in the wilderness! > > The MS is the BLML MS---which carries no regulatory authority. Has > there been a clear and specific regulatory statement supporting either > side? What I have read so far is quite general and not yet clear > enough to cover the specific cases Herman brings up. I doubt there is > a statement for ACBL land, for example. > Thank you for clarifying that Majority is a small number of people. > > This begs the question in exactly the same way you did earlier in this > post. A crucial, oft-repeated dWS point is that one will deliberately > infract a law either way. You are simply ignoring the MS deliberate > infraction. If you can prove that MS involves no infraction, you win. > When you prove that dWS does, you just wasted time. > Again, no comment. >> At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South >> voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- >> stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled >> to take as their ***responsibility***. > > I don't see why this is relevant to our point. If no UI was provided > by someone using dWS, then how did his partner use UI? Don't you > agree that dWS gives more MI and less UI, while MS gives more UI and > less MI? What you quote here has to do with UI, not MI, so it is more > likely to be a problem with MS. > >> Ergo, North's illegal De Wael School action damaged East-West, since >> legal Majority School action would give East-West +1100, so the >> score has to be adjusted to NS -1100, EW +1100. >> >> What's the problem? >> > > I will list three. First, as I have mentioned above, you are not > addressing the illegal MS action you want players to follow. Second, > there is no law that says MS is perfect and the only way. Third, > there is no law that states what you claim---that if you failed to > provide the UI that MS would have you provide, then you must be ruled > against as if you provided UI and partner illegally used it. I wonder > if even one MS supporter besides yourself would go that far---to say > that a case devoid of illegal use of UI must be ruled as if it had > illegal use of UI. > I could not have said it better myself. In fact, I did say it, and not better. > Jerry Fusselman > I am sorry if this brands Jerry as the third official member of the dWS. Who's next? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 12 13:49:46 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:49:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470F5F5A.5050406@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." [Jerry Fusselman] No one disputes this. What Herman is saying---please recall---is that both schools require breaking a law. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to disprove Herman's contention that MS also breaks the laws rather than arguing precisely what Herman agrees with and has granted all along? Every time I read someone complaining that dWS recommends breaking one of the laws it seems to me yet another case where the supporters of MS don't understand Herman's position anywhere near as well as he understands theirs. Usually one does not spend a lot time proving what the other side has already admitted scores of times. [Richard] Acolytes of the De Wael School self-incriminatingly admit that they infringe Law 75C and Law 75D1 intentionally. Those acolytes try to mitigate their Law 72B2 "found guilty" infraction by arguing that the Majority School is wrong. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, that mitigation cuts no ice in the majority of tournaments where the Regulating Authorities deem that the Majority School is valid. [Jerry] The MS is the BLML MS---which carries no regulatory authority. Has there been a clear and specific regulatory statement supporting either side? What I have read so far is quite general and not yet clear enough to cover the specific cases Herman brings up. I doubt there is a statement for ACBL land, for example. [Richard] Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a ***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to ethically kamikaze into -1100. [Jerry] I think both sides realize this full well. But Herman's way makes this unauthorized reminding about half as likely than with MS. This quote seems to support dWS more than MS. At least we should be able to agree that dWS makes unauthorized reminding far less likely. [Richard] (Believe me, I know how it feels. In my salad days of playing the HUM system Forcing Pass Relay I frequently had to knowingly march towards -1100 when I gained UI that a wheel had fallen off.) [Jerry] By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL nationals IMP games that the laws state that when the wheels start falling off the opponent's auction and they then use UI to get themselves back on track, the most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable board is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. I wish there was something in the laws, or the upcoming appendix, to fix this misunderstanding on their part. I think it should be made clear that the 3 or 4 IMP assigned score does not apply to cases after blatant use of UI to avoid 1100-point disasters. [Richard] Meanwhile, at another table, a De Wael School North chooses to take the illegal action of deliberately infracting Law 75C and Law 75D1, so chooses to describe South's misbid instead of choosing the Law 75C and Law 75D1 requirement to describe the different North-South partnership understanding. [Jerry] This begs the question in exactly the same way you did earlier in this post. A crucial, oft-repeated dWS point is that one will deliberately infract a law either way. You are simply ignoring the MS deliberate infraction. If you can prove that MS involves no infraction, you win. When you prove that dWS does, you just wasted time. [Richard] At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled to take as their ***responsibility***. [Jerry] I don't see why this is relevant to our point. If no UI was provided by someone using dWS, then how did his partner use UI? Don't you agree that dWS gives more MI and less UI, while MS gives more UI and less MI? What you quote here has to do with UI, not MI, so it is more likely to be a problem with MS. [Richard] Ergo, North's illegal De Wael School action damaged East-West, since legal Majority School action would give East-West +1100, so the score has to be adjusted to NS -1100, EW +1100. What's the problem? [Jerry] I will list three. First, as I have mentioned above, you are not addressing the illegal MS action you want players to follow. Second, there is no law that says MS is perfect and the only way. Third, there is no law that states what you claim---that if you failed to provide the UI that MS would have you provide, then you must be ruled against as if you provided UI and partner illegally used it. I wonder if even one MS supporter besides yourself would go that far---to say that a case devoid of illegal use of UI must be ruled as if it had illegal use of UI. [nige1] Hirsch convinced me that Herman is wrong but Jerry seems to have much the best of this exchange with Richard. This is one of dozens of interminable BLML arguments, with important practical implications at the Bridge table, that the WBFLC could have nipped in the bud, years ago, with clarifications and simplifications, in-place in an on-line law-book. Many BLMLers, including Grattan Endicott, claim that the WBF or ACBL have officially outlawed the de Wael interpretation but I've seen no evidence. Let us hope that the new law-book resolves some of these controversies. Better late than never. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 12 13:54:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:54:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470F242D.40500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c80cc6$9acd41a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> If I am correct the kernel of this thread is the possible conflict between Law 75C and Law 75D2. Law 75C positively dictates that when answering a question on a call made by partner the player must give all relevant information according to the agreements within the partnership (except such information that is a matter of general knowledge and experience). The laws are specific that the player shall not attempt to describe partner's hand; his duty is to describe their agreements related to the auction. He must for instance say that partner holds the Ace of hearts if that is their agreements on the bid being explained, even if he has this Ace in his own hand. Law 75D2 specifically forbids a player from indicating that partner has made an error in his explanation of the player's own call(s). Literally this establishes a conflict when the call by one player is tightly connected to a previous call by his partner and the previous call was incorrectly explained to opponents. Is the player to explain the last call bound by Law 75C thereby apparently violating Law 75D2, or is he bound by Law 75D2 thereby apparently violating Law 75C? As my last attempt to resolve this conflict I shall point to the fact that we have several places in the laws where we find the test: "but see law xx" which indicates an exception from the main rule laid out in the law containing this insertion. We find no such insertion in Law 75C which, regardless of what arguments can be brought into this discussion, must be considered the main law on answering questions from opponents on partnership agreements. I would without any hesitation have agreed with dWS if Law 75C had been written with something like the following text inserted: "but see Law 75D2 when partner has previously during the auction given incorrect explanation of the player's own call(s)." As no such exception is indicated in Law 75C, and as everything we have from WBFLC appears to sustain the principle that Law 75C shall apply without any exception, I cannot accept that Law 75D2 prevents a player from giving UI to his partner when duly explaining that partner's calls in accordance with Law 75C. Instead of prohibiting the possible deliberate creation of UI because of fully complying with Law 75C the laws explicitly state that a player receiving such UI is prohibited from making any use of it (as long as that information remains unauthorized for him). This principle seems to agree best with the opinion of MS (whatever that shall mean) and also best be compatible with the situation when screens are in use. It is also the principle that to me appears best suited for implementation in online bridge. So if this principle is accepted then what remain of Law 75D2? The way I understand this law it addresses the unsolicited information from a player that his partner has incorrectly explained any of his calls. It does not apply when opponents ask him any question on his partner's call(s), and if an implicit effect of his correct explanation is that partner has previously given incorrect information is no violation of Law 75D2. (But explicitly pointing out that partner has given incorrect information without specifically being asked about such fact is still a violation of Law 75D2.) In fact opponents are even free to directly ask him questions like: "Do you agree with your partner's explanation of your call" and such questions must also be (correctly) answered. (I can imagine situations where TD should first be summoned to the table.) Although Law 20F1 says that "replies should normally be given by the partner of the player who made a call in question", it does not absolutely forbid questions on a call from being directed to the player that made the call. Regards Sven From webmaster at bridgefederation.ch Fri Oct 12 14:29:44 2007 From: webmaster at bridgefederation.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:29:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> Message-ID: <470F68B8.6020003@bridgefederation.ch> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 14:44:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:44:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <470F5F5A.5050406@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> <470F5F5A.5050406@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <470F6C17.5090603@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > Hirsch convinced me that Herman is wrong but Jerry seems to have much the best of this > exchange with Richard. > I knew that if only one poster were to take up my case, others would see that there is something there. Yet another evidence of the If Herman Then Wrong attitude. Well, I'm not bitter, I hope this is the start of a beautiful period on blml. > This is one of dozens of interminable BLML arguments, with important practical > implications at the Bridge table, that the WBFLC could have nipped in the bud, years ago, > with clarifications and simplifications, in-place in an on-line law-book. > Indeed they should have. But I feel that just as with any group, it would take the WBFLC some time to come to grips with the perhaps counterintuitive nature of the dWS. > Many BLMLers, including Grattan Endicott, claim that the WBF or ACBL have officially > outlawed the de Wael interpretation but I've seen no evidence. > Indeed there is nothing there. Grattan alluded to the WBFLC minute that stated that it is not a crime to give inadvertent UI. But as Alain pointed out, the MS quite advertently give out UI. > Let us hope that the new law-book resolves some of these controversies. Better late than > never. > Now that the WBFLC have finished their work, I am perhaps at liberty to reveal that there will be no fundamental changed to the laws with regards to UI and MI. This problem will lay on the shelf for another 10 years. I am not unhappy at this, as I have not yet been able to warn off the WBF that any change to the laws that would bring about recognition of the MS as the only correct way of handing these cases, would be a change for the worse. But that's another story entirely. Let's in the meantime proceed with small steps towards a more general recognition that maybe the dWS is not as crazy as some of you think. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 14:51:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:51:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun": [snip] >You too may be a big hero, >Once you've learned to count backwards to zero, >"In German oder English I know how to count down, >Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun. LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL A. No Appeals Committee The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication. 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.) C. Further Possibilities of Appeal 1. Regulating Authorities may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. 2. The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally. 3. (a) Notwithstanding 1 and 2 above, where deeming it crucial to the progress of the tournament the Regulating Authority may assign the responsibility for dealing finally with any appeal to the respective tournament Appeals Committee and, along with the parties to the appeal, is then bound by the outcome. (b) With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. Richard Hills: Two key changes have been introduced into Law 93. Firstly, an ambiguity has been resolved by the replacement of the undefined and ambiguous term "Chief Director" with the plain English term "Director in charge". This clarifies that for a tournament which has a single Director in charge, that Director is El Supremo, and that Director cannot be overruled by a person not present at the tournament who happens to hold the honorary title of "Chief Director of Ruritania". Secondly, the Law 93C procedures for appeal to what used to be known as the "National Authority" - now described as the "Regulating Authority" - have been clarified and formalised. 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 Oct 12 14:52:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:52:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "Countdown" was an Aussie popular music television show, running from 1974 to 1987, hosted by Ian "Molly" Meldrum, and featuring music clips and interviews with most of the major stars of that time. According to urban myth, on one occasion a viewer rang in to complain when she noticed that Molly Meldrum's leg was obscuring the first "o" in a "Countdown" banner. LAW 92 - RIGHT TO APPEAL A. Contestant's Right A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. B. 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 Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period. C. How to Appeal All appeals shall be made through the Director. D. Concurrence of Appellants An appeal shall not be heard unless 1. in a pairs event both members of the partnership concur in making the appeal (but in an individual contest an appellant does not require his partner?s concurrence). 2. in a team event the team captain concurs in making the appeal. Richard Hills: There are two significant changes to Law 92. One is that the concept of "sponsoring organization" has been removed from the Lawbook, replaced by the two new concepts of "Regulating Authority" and "Tournament Organizer". The second is that Law 92D not only has been clarified, but also has been changed. New Orleans 1995 Appeals Casebook, Case Six: [snip] >The Committee also discovered that North failed to >appear at the hearing because he did not concur with >South's appeal [snip] >Granovetter: This was a good decision. A special award >should be given to North for not showing up. Again, this >kind of clear case should somehow be decided on the >playing area and not waste everyone's time. Richard Hills: So, after a dozen years, Matthew Granovetter's wish has finally been granted, since "An absent member shall be deemed to concur" has been deleted from Law 92D. 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 Oct 12 14:53:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:53:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >From Wikipedia: >County Down, (Contae an D?in in Irish, meaning "the Fort") >is one of the nine counties that form Ulster, and one of >the six counties that form Northern Ireland. > >The Old Inn in Crawfordsburn is one of Ireland's oldest >hostelries, with records dating back to 1614. The inn >claims that people who have stayed there include Jonathan >Swift, Dick Turpin, Peter the Great, Alfred Lord Tennyson, >former United States President George H.W. Bush, and C.S. >Lewis (who honeymooned there). LAW 91 - PENALIZE OR SUSPEND A. Director's Powers In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director's decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3). B. Right to Disqualify The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer. Richard Hills: Three minor changes in Law 91. Firstly, a superfluous adjective has been removed, so the old wording "the Director is specifically empowered" has been simplified to "the Director is empowered". Secondly, the Law 91A word "final" has been clarified and cross-referenced. Thirdly, the undefined concept of the "Tournament Committee" has been removed, replaced by the defined (Law 80) concept of the "Tournament Organizer". 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 Oct 12 14:54:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:54:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A google search for "Count dune" reveals that Count Hasimir Fenring is a minor character in the classic science fiction novel Dune, written by the late Frank Herbert. However, Fenring was a major character in the Prelude to Dune trilogy co-authored by Frank Herbert's son Brian and Kevin J. Anderson. In those prequels Fenring advises: "There are obvious pressures of working in an environment where one isn't likely to survive even the smallest mistake." "In plotting any course of revenge, one must savor the anticipation phase and all its moments, for the actual execution often differs widely from the original plan." The actual execution of the 2007 Lawbook often differs widely from the original 1997 Lawbook, partially because the 2007 Drafting Committee wished to exterminate all of the 1997 edition's smallest mistakes. LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): 1. arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time. 2. unduly slow play by a contestant. 3. discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table. 4. unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant. 5. touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (see Law 7). 6. placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board. 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant. 8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director. Richard Hills: Two smallest mistakes of the 1997 Lawbook are corrected here. Firstly, the old mistake of using the word "penalty" with two meanings has been rectified by using "rectified" or "rectification" instead when referring to a remedy for an infraction by an offending side. Apart from retaining the classic term "penalty card", the word "penalty" in the 2007 Lawbook is now restricted to referring to a "disciplinary penalty" or to a "procedural penalty". Secondly, the Law 80B prologue now makes it abundantly clear to even the most obtuse Secretary Bird that any infraction by an offending side may, if deemed appropriate by the Director, be the cause of the awarding of 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 Fri Oct 12 14:55:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:55:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Keith McNeil, Match Your Bidding Against The Masters, pp 162-163: Imps, North-South vulnerable. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass Pass Dble ? What should South call with: S AQ86 H KQ93 D J95 C 62 What price five-card majors now? [snip] Finally, to prove that the HILLS are not alive with the sound of music: HILLS: "2C. Followed by SOS redouble to find our best spot." _Your_ best spot is fifteen miles from any bridge table. It only remains to say North held: S 75 H AT86 D T763 C 873 and 1D doubled cost 500. This proves little, but has the merit of making me feel smug. Call Award Panel Pass 100 21 1H 90 13 Rdble 20 1 2C 10 1 LAW 89 - RECTIFICATION IN INDIVIDUAL EVENTS See Law 12C3. Richard Hills: The late great Keith McNeil was temporary Director of Bidding Forum (the Australian Bridge magazine's version of The Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club) for twenty years. His erudition was matched by his wit, thus causing friendly banter between him and his expert panellists. For decades Keith strove to win the Australian Individual Championship. 1989 was the year that he was going to win it, but unfortunately he had to stay home that year to recover from a heart attack, so I won it that year instead. In my next set of Bidding Forum answers I taunted him by accidentally including the word "individual" in all eight of my comments. ;-) 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 Oct 12 14:55:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:55:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892): "Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null, Dead perfection, no more." LAW 88 - AWARD OF INDEMNITY POINTS See Law 12C2. Richard Hills: A dead perfect 2007 Lawbook would have 52 Laws arranged in a logical sequence without any skeleton Laws which merely state "see Law 12C2". But trying to get from 93 Laws in 1997 to 52 Laws in 2007 led to a splendidly null draft which the Drafting Committee reluctantly had to abandon a few years ago. The problem of radically changing the meaning and language of the Laws simultaneously with radically changing the format and layout of the Laws meant that the chances of a drafting error were squared, and the chances of a subsequent misinterpretation by a club Director were cubed. So the Drafting Committee eventually decided to keep all of 1997's 93 traditional Laws, and some of 1997's Kaplanesque traditional language as "scaffolding" while it erected a huge number of glittering changes to the Lawbook. The Drafting Committee did, however, decide upon some sensible consolidation of policies into either a single Law, or into several adjacent Laws. Hence the skeletal nature of Laws 88 and 89, as their substance was moved into the single Law on adjusted scores, Law 12. 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 Oct 12 14:56:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:56:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 17th July 2007: +=+ Richard, you were a mite harsh in this response. I have no wish to stifle the opinions, however unlikely of implementation, of such as Nigel. Much occasions no more than a wry smile and the delete button, but occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ LAW 87 - FOULED BOARD A. Definition A board is considered to be "fouled" if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason. B. Scoring In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament. (In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.) Richard Hills: This Law is an example of a "tiny diamond" from blml. An idiosyncratic blmler asserted that differing vulnerabilities marked on a board did not cause that board to be fouled. So some clarifying text magically appeared in the 2007 Law 87A. Monty Python's Life of Brian: "He's making it up as he goes along!" Richard Hills: And Law 87B also contains a new power for the Director to "make it up as he goes along" when there is not any existing tournament regulation on the scoring of fouled boards. Plus an obsolete statement on redealing in some team contests has been deleted. 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 Oct 12 14:57:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:57:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 6th March 2007: >(and the scoring is Butler imps, although that's not relevant except >that an award of 2 imps a board is appropriate if you're awarding >average plus.) LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY OR SIMILAR A. Average Score at IMP Play When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer. B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play When the Director awards 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 each contestant. C. Substitute Board The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score. D. Result Obtained at Other Table In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side). * if commenced between the same two contestants at another table the board may be completed Richard Hills: The 1997 Law 86A rigidly defined Ave+ in imp play as +3 imps. As John (MadDog) Probst has noted on several occasions on blml, Ave+ in imp play should vary depending upon the exact type of imp play used. For example, a popular form of imp pair is Butler scoring against a datum. This method of scoring reduces the size of imp swings compared to imp team scoring, so John (MadDog) Probst correctly notes that Ave+ at Butler imps should be pro rata reduced to +2 imps. So the 2007 Law 86A permits regulations to vary Ave+ and Ave- at imps. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 12 14:58:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:58:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001e01c80cc6$9acd41a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001e01c80cc6$9acd41a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <470F6F6C.4050701@skynet.be> Sven has made some huge strides forward, and then he falls into the old familiar trap - a preconceived idea must be upheld at all times. Let's see how he does that: Sven Pran wrote: > If I am correct the kernel of this thread is the possible conflict between > Law 75C and Law 75D2. > It is a bit sad that it took you so long to grasp that, but it is indeed the main point of this thread. > Law 75C positively dictates that when answering a question on a call made by > partner the player must give all relevant information according to the > agreements within the partnership (except such information that is a matter > of general knowledge and experience). > indeed. > The laws are specific that the player shall not attempt to describe > partner's hand; his duty is to describe their agreements related to the > auction. He must for instance say that partner holds the Ace of hearts if > that is their agreements on the bid being explained, even if he has this Ace > in his own hand. > Indeed. May I however add that there is nothing in those laws that prohibits a player from telling what is in partner's hand, in addition to the agreement? It is not compulsary to say "0 or 3 aces, in this case 0", but it is not forbidden either. It is not wrong to say "0 aces", when in fact it's "0 or 3 or 5". And it is not entirely wrong to forget to add "and no void", even if, technically, that is part of the system. But I digress. Basically, Sven is right. > Law 75D2 specifically forbids a player from indicating that partner has made > an error in his explanation of the player's own call(s). > Indeed. > Literally this establishes a conflict when the call by one player is tightly > connected to a previous call by his partner and the previous call was > incorrectly explained to opponents. > Not just literally - in practice at the table as well. > Is the player to explain the last call bound by Law 75C thereby apparently > violating Law 75D2, or is he bound by Law 75D2 thereby apparently violating > Law 75C? > to C or to D, that is the question! > As my last attempt to resolve this conflict I shall point to the fact that > we have several places in the laws where we find the test: "but see law xx" > which indicates an exception from the main rule laid out in the law > containing this insertion. > > We find no such insertion in Law 75C which, regardless of what arguments can > be brought into this discussion, must be considered the main law on > answering questions from opponents on partnership agreements. > This is a nice try to resolve the problem. Sadly, as with so many arguments, a little cut and paste will turn this into: > We find no such insertion in Law 75D2 which, regardless of what arguments can > be brought into this discussion, must be considered the main law on dealing with partner's mistakes. Yet another symmetry, Sven. You've turned this simply into another question of relative importance: Are we dealing here mainly with the question of MI or UI? Depending on that answer, we shall start with one or the other law, and seeing that there is no exception clause to that law, we determine the outcome of the discussion. But as long as we don't agree on what question to ask to begin with, this argument does not solve our dilemma. > I would without any hesitation have agreed with dWS if Law 75C had been > written with something like the following text inserted: "but see Law 75D2 > when partner has previously during the auction given incorrect explanation > of the player's own call(s)." > And I would without hesitation follow the MS if there had been a similar phrase in L75D2. So we're nowhere again. > As no such exception is indicated in Law 75C, and as everything we have from > WBFLC appears to sustain the principle that Law 75C shall apply without any > exception, I cannot accept that Law 75D2 prevents a player from giving UI to > his partner when duly explaining that partner's calls in accordance with Law > 75C. > Well, everything I've heard from the WBFLC appears to sustain the principle that L75D2 shall apply without exception. > Instead of prohibiting the possible deliberate creation of UI because of > fully complying with Law 75C the laws explicitly state that a player > receiving such UI is prohibited from making any use of it (as long as that > information remains unauthorized for him). > Of course, there is no question about that. > This principle seems to agree best with the opinion of MS (whatever that > shall mean) and also best be compatible with the situation when screens are > in use. It is also the principle that to me appears best suited for > implementation in online bridge. > Well, in online and screen bridge, this problem does not exist. > So if this principle is accepted then what remain of Law 75D2? > > The way I understand this law it addresses the unsolicited information from > a player that his partner has incorrectly explained any of his calls. It > does not apply when opponents ask him any question on his partner's call(s), > and if an implicit effect of his correct explanation is that partner has > previously given incorrect information is no violation of Law 75D2. > > (But explicitly pointing out that partner has given incorrect information > without specifically being asked about such fact is still a violation of Law > 75D2.) > > In fact opponents are even free to directly ask him questions like: "Do you > agree with your partner's explanation of your call" and such questions must > also be (correctly) answered. (I can imagine situations where TD should > first be summoned to the table.) > Now you go even further. Why not abolish L75D2 altogether, and simply make a player correct MI from partner? In fact, that was the final suggestion I put to Grattan, and he said he would toss it about. > Although Law 20F1 says that "replies should normally be given by the partner > of the player who made a call in question", it does not absolutely forbid > questions on a call from being directed to the player that made the call. > > Regards Sven > This issue isn't settled yet, Sven! But we're slowly getting closer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 14:59:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:59:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills (4th October 2007), _unofficial_ opinion: >The World Bridge Federation might soon officially rule that >the Law 85A word "satisfied" should not be interpreted as >"the Director is satisfied that his ruling is in accordance >with his personal De Wael School philosophy" but rather >should be interpreted as "the Director is satisfied that his >ruling is based on the balance of probabilities". > >If the World Bridge Federation does decide to issue such a >clarifying ruling (which is what many sensible Directors have >been doing for decades anyway), then, in my opinion, a >Director who is a De Wael School acolyte should have to >choose between: > >(a) continuing to be an acolyte of the De Wael School, or > >(b) continuing to be a licensed Director. * * * LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. * * * Richard Hills: (12th October 2007), _unofficial_ opinion: The most important single change introduced to the 2007 Laws is Law 85A1. This is _not_ because Law 85A1 kyboshes the De Wael School. After all, Directors who give arbitrary rulings on disputed facts due to a semi-religious belief in their idiosyncratic interpretation of Law are extremely rare, so it is not worth changing the Law for that purpose. And this is _not_ because (pace Nigel Guthrie) it makes it harder for corrupt Directors to rule in favour of their friends on disputed facts. After all, corrupt Directors, while more common than semi- religious idiosyncratic Directors, are still very rare and tend to have dwindling membership in the clubs they run. No, the big advantage of Law 85A1 is that it enables all Directors to fairly and freely dispense justice at less risk of a successful legal action from a disgruntled offending player. A second big advantage of Law 85A1 is that it refutes a common misconception by some pacifist Directors that if the facts are disputed, then one should automatically believe the putative offending side and rule that no infraction has occurred. (Such a pacifist ruling even occurred at an ACBL National a few years ago.) 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 Oct 12 15:15:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:15:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it. PREFACE TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE The first Laws of Duplicate Bridge were published in 1928. There had been successive revisions in 1933, 1935, 1943, 1949, 1963, 1975, 1987, and 1997. In accordance with its By-Laws the World Bridge Federation promulgated the current edition in 2007. Previously through the 1930s the Laws were promulgated by the Portland Club of London and the Whist Club of New York. From the 40s onwards the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and the European Bridge League supplemented the Portland Club's efforts. The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, as they were in 1987 and 1997. This latest revision supersedes the 1997 Code. Zonal authorities may implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th September 2008. Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees", to which attention is drawn. The Drafting Committee notes with sorrow the passing of Ralph Cohen during the drafting of the new Code and the earlier passing of Edgar Kaplan. The assistance of Antonio Riccardi is acknowledged together with that of David Davenport of the Portland Club. The Drafting Committee also acknowledges with gratitude the substantial contributions of Anna Gudge, Richard Hills and Rick Assad. The Code, however, would not have been produced without the dedication and hard work of its Coordinator, Grattan Endicott. The Drafting Committee consisted of: Max Bavin Ralph Cohen Joan Gerard Ton Kooijman Jeffrey Polisner William Schoder Grattan Endicott (Co-ordinator) John Wignall (Chairman) John R. Wignall, MNZM Richard Hills: There was a man called Richard James Hills, and he almost deserved it. I have an inherent tendency to run off the rails. Many thanks to Grattan Endicott for his constant counselling of me, which kept me on the straight and narrow as we closely worked together on this marathon year-long project. Many thanks also to Anna Gudge ("Arwen") whose behind-the-scenes work was invaluable. In addition to her primary tasks maintaining Laws mailing lists and as Laws webmaster, she was also indispensable to me as a backstop for my errors in proof-reading and version control. In the immortal words of the late, great Douglas Adams: "So long, and thanks for all the fish." 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 Fri Oct 12 15:30:43 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:30:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470F242D.40500@skynet.be> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> <470F242D.40500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c80cd4$16f90e00$44eb2a00$@com> >David: L75D2, L73B1 Herman, you keep quoting these Laws, but they are irrelevant. Law 75D2 refers to a situation in which a player's partner has given a mistaken explanation of the partnership methods. But if you don't know whether your partner has given a mistaken explanation of the partnership methods, Law 75D2 does not apply to you. To clarify with reference to the example I gave: West North East South 2D 2NT (1) Pass 3D (2) (1) Alerted by South and (though this did not happen at the table) explained as minors. North, who believes that the partnership methods are that 2NT is natural, may now "not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". According to the dWS, this means that... (2) ...North should not alert 3D, because he may have to explain this as, or South may from the alert alone infer that North thinks it is, a transfer to hearts. This would be "an indication that a mistake has been made", contrary to L75D2. Of course, North should still bid 3H, or break the transfer if his hand warrants it - the dWS and I are in full agreement on this point. But for as long as North believes that the partnership methods are than 2NT is natural, he must alert any of South's bids that are alertable in that context. Since North is not allowed to infer anything from South's alert of 2NT, he must alert 3H, which is what he would do if he were deaf, or playing behind a screen. The Laws presume that South does not hear North's alerts and explanations, and vice versa. This is of course a legal fiction, but it is a useful one, and for the sake of simplicity we may extend it so that questions asked of North and answers given by North do not legally constitute any indication to South. In that way, no one need break any Laws, and the dWS can safely be towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 12 16:03:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:03:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3E7D3ED0-A10B-49D6-9032-EF0FCF93B481@starpower.net> On Oct 11, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 10/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> Acolytes of the De Wael School self-incriminatingly admit that they >> infringe Law 75C and Law 75D1 intentionally. Those acolytes try to >> mitigate their Law 72B2 "found guilty" infraction by arguing that >> the Majority School is wrong. Since ignorance of the law is no >> excuse, that mitigation cuts no ice in the majority of tournaments >> where the Regulating Authorities deem that the Majority School is >> valid. > > The MS is the BLML MS---which carries no regulatory authority. Has > there been a clear and specific regulatory statement supporting either > side? What I have read so far is quite general and not yet clear > enough to cover the specific cases Herman brings up. I doubt there is > a statement for ACBL land, for example. Don't ask me for an exact citation, but I'm confident that the generally accepted principle of the "MS" -- that you must disclose your actual agreements, regardless of what you think partner is doing -- has been discussed more than once over the years in "Ruling the Game" (a monthly column in the ACBL Bulletin). Admittedly, the ACBL has been known to disclaim the "officialness" of what appears in that column. >> Once South is reminded of their partnership understanding by North, >> the Law 75 footnote (final paragraph) states that South has a >> ***responsibility*** to continue bidding on the basis of South's >> initial misunderstanding, so South is no longer entitled to remember >> their actual partnership understanding, thus South eventually has to >> ethically kamikaze into -1100. > > I think both sides realize this full well. But Herman's way makes > this unauthorized reminding about half as likely than with MS. This > quote seems to support dWS more than MS. At least we should be able > to agree that dWS makes unauthorized reminding far less likely. I think we can all agree that the dWS makes *reminding* far less likely. The MS points to the WBF pronouncements on the subject (reported in this forum by Grattan and David) and disputes the "unauthorized" part. > By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL nationals IMP > games that the laws state that when the wheels start falling off the > opponent's auction and they then use UI to get themselves back on > track, the most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable board > is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. I wish there was something > in the laws, or the upcoming appendix, to fix this misunderstanding on > their part. I think it should be made clear that the 3 or 4 IMP > assigned score does not apply to cases after blatant use of UI to > avoid 1100-point disasters. BLML has discussed this before. The law is clear and does not need to be fixed, notwithstanding that it is frequently blatantly violated. The 3 IMP adjustment comes from L12C1, which explicitly applies only when "no result can be obtained". To "award[] an... adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained" one must use L12C2, which would require restoring the "avoided" 1100-point disaster. >> Meanwhile, at another table, a De Wael School North chooses to take >> the illegal action of deliberately infracting Law 75C and Law 75D1, >> so chooses to describe South's misbid instead of choosing the Law >> 75C and Law 75D1 requirement to describe the different North-South >> partnership understanding. > > This begs the question in exactly the same way you did earlier in this > post. A crucial, oft-repeated dWS point is that one will deliberately > infract a law either way. You are simply ignoring the MS deliberate > infraction. If you can prove that MS involves no infraction, you win. > When you prove that dWS does, you just wasted time. Quite so; see above. The MS reads TFLB (with help from the WBF's -- and others' -- official pronouncements) as saying that the "reminding" that the Herman chooses to avoid is in fact authorized (indeed, required), not an infraction. >> At a later (but not too late) point in time the De Wael School South >> voluntarily remembers their partnership understanding, thus side- >> stepping the -1100 disaster the Majority School South was compelled >> to take as their ***responsibility***. > > I don't see why this is relevant to our point. If no UI was provided > by someone using dWS, then how did his partner use UI? Don't you > agree that dWS gives more MI and less UI, while MS gives more UI and > less MI? What you quote here has to do with UI, not MI, so it is more > likely to be a problem with MS. It is the dWS user, not his partner, who uses UI; his actions are perforce based on the unauthorized knowledge that his partner has not bid in conformity with the actual partnership agreement. The MS requires its "user" to take the same action he would have if he lacked that knowledge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Fri Oct 12 16:50:08 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:50:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be><001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470E5822.2040504@skynet.be><000901c80c8d$e21b6f70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> <470F23FE.7050201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c80cdf$3273cf70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:06 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> >>>>> And from MI to calling a person who tells what partner holds, even if >>>>> it is not correct according to system, a _cheat_ (your words, raija) >>>>> is IMO a few steps too far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Read again. Those are not my words. >>>> >>>> Do not rephrase someone else's text and boldly claim they said it! As >>>> far >>>> as my writings go, in a forum like like this, I request the courtesy >>>> that >>>> you quote me *as is* and *in its original form* without putting words >>>> in >>>> my >>>> mouth I have not said. >>>> >>> OK Raija, not your words, someone elses in any case - not mine (which >>> was what I wanted to say) >>> Sorry about that. >>> >>> The point remains though that this is MI, not something worse. IMO. >>> >> >> I agree that it is MI, but deliberately giving a false explanation of >> one's >> agreements is not the same as simple accidental MI. Trying to gain an >> advantage by the false explanation, ie. deliberate MI, is a serious >> offense, >> both by the Laws and by common ethics. The advantage sought in this case >> is >> that partner would not be under UI restrictions during the auction. >> > > Indeed. Advantage sought and found. > But what is the alternative? > Deliberately giving UI? The Law requires a correct explanation of one's agreements. If that becomes UI, the explainer is not at fault in any way. There is an official interpretation of this existing. Again, see Grattan's post some time ago and Richard's post of today. > Isn't that just as bad? I find that a serious offense as well. If transmission of UI were a serious offence, then you would likely find bridge nothing but a "serious offence". It is the use of the UI that is an infraction. > And the aim of this thread is not about agreeing that something is a > serious offense, we already about that. > The aim of this thread is to find out which is the more serious offense. That target was reached long time ago by virtually everyone else but you. > > By stating that one set of actions is "a serious offense", you bring > nothing to this thread unless you also say how serious you find the > other offense. And then preferably not just by your own opionion > (because my opinion is just as valid as yours), but by referring to > law numbers, sentences, and WBF philosophy. I may bring nothing to this thread, you might be correct in that. But my opinion is unchaged: I will not lie in order to gain an advantage and I will not approve of such practice by others; this I learned in Kindergarten. I don't need a Law number or WBF interpretation. Raija From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 12 17:38:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <470F6F6C.4050701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c80ce5$f7444630$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 12. oktober 2007 14:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > Sven has made some huge strides forward, and then he falls into the > old familiar trap - a preconceived idea must be upheld at all times. > Let's see how he does that: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > If I am correct the kernel of this thread is the possible conflict > between > > Law 75C and Law 75D2. > > > > It is a bit sad that it took you so long to grasp that, but it is > indeed the main point of this thread. It didn't take me that long; I have all the time been aware of the alleged conflicts in the present laws. Not that I have ever accepted any existence of this conflict. But in this my contribution I made every effort to build a complete logical chain to avoid any misconception with my submission. That was my reason for stating precisely what I saw as the "problem". In case you are unfamiliar with it, this is a standard and required procedure when dealing with mathematical problems, and particularly when logic is involved. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 12 18:46:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:46:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws Message-ID: <000201c80cef$6607bf80$6400a8c0@WINXP> A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all numbered (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy identification of and reference to a particular footnote. I notice that the new laws as they are now published use only asterisks for reference to footnotes, one or more asterisks as required to distinguish between more than one footnote within the same law, but there seems to be no way of distinguishing between footnotes related to separate laws? Is there any hope for having the footnotes uniquely (and officially) identified? Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 22:00:11 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:00:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c80cef$6607bf80$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes >are all numbered (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling >easy identification of and reference to a particular >footnote. > >I notice that the new laws as they are now published use >only asterisks for reference to footnotes, one or more >asterisks as required to distinguish between more than one >footnote within the same law, but there seems to be no way >of distinguishing between footnotes related to separate >laws? > >Is there any hope for having the footnotes uniquely (and >officially) identified? Richard Hills: Interesting (but not unexpected) that the first substantive comment by another blmler on the new Laws is a complaint about the formatting I used. It Ain't Half Hot Mum (BBC sitcom): "Oh dear, how sad, never mind." ;-) 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 Oct 12 22:47:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:47:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag: First you get down on your knees, Fiddle with your rosaries, Bow your head with great respect, And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect! Do whatever steps you want if You have cleared them with the Pontiff, [snip] Index to the 2007 Laws compiled by Richard Hills and based on original work on the 1997 Laws by Rick Assad. Richard Hills: Gut yontiff, Pontiff. Pope Benedict XVI may (perhaps) think that he is the most important living Catholic, but he is merely the most senior living Catholic. The most important living Catholic is an obscure person who is so very obscure that I do not know who that person is. Likewise, many of the Great and the Good on blml do not have their names immortalised in the new Lawbook. But a man who does have his name immortalised is a man who is so obscure that his name has never once before appeared in a blml posting. Rick Assad is an EBU Director who noticed that the official Index to the 1997 Lawbook was juju-flop useless. Rather than merely moaning and complaining, Rick decided to do something about it, so he created a comprehensive new 1997 Index intelligently cross- reference by Law number (rather than stupidly cross- referenced by page number). Because Rick's 1997 Index was so comprehensive, I was easily able to erect the 2007 Index on its sturdy foundations, rather than me having to create a less comprehensive Index from scratch. 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 Oct 12 23:16:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:16:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Arthur Conan Doyle, "Silver Blaze": "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. DEFINITIONS Adjusted Score - A score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is either "artificial" or "assigned". Alert - A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation. Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). Bid - an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. Board - 1. A duplicate board as described in Law 2. 2. The four hands as originally dealt and placed in a duplicate board for play during a session (also referred to as a "deal"). Call - Any bid, double, redouble or pass. Cancelled - see "Withdrawn". Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Contract - the undertaking by declarer's side to win, at the denomination named, the number of odd tricks specified in the final bid, whether undoubled, doubled or redoubled. (See Law 22) Deal - 1. The distribution of the pack to form the hands of the four players. 2. The cards so distributed considered as a unit, including the auction and play thereof. Declarer - the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). Defender - an opponent of (presumed) declarer. Denomination - the suit or no trump specified in a bid. Double - a call over an opponent's bid increasing the scoring value of fulfilled or defeated contracts (see Laws 19A and 77). Dummy - 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer's partner's cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. Event - a contest of one or more sessions. Extraneous - not part of the lawful procedures of the game. Follow Suit - Play a card of the suit that has been led. Game - 100 or more trick points scored on one deal. Hand - the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof. Honour - any Ace, King, Queen, Jack or 10. Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. International Matchpoint (IMP) - a unit of scoring awarded according to a schedule established in Law 78B. Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Lead - the first card played to a trick. LHO - Left-hand opponent. Matchpoint - a unit of scoring awarded to a contestant as a result of comparison with one or more other scores. See Law 78A. Odd Trick - each trick to be won by declarer's side in excess of six. Opening Lead - the card led to the first trick. Opponent - a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed. Overtrick - each trick won by declarer??s side in excess of the contract. Pack - the 52 playing cards with which the game is played. Partner - the player with whom one plays as a side against the other two players at the table. Partscore - 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal. Pass - a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble. Penalty (See also "Rectification") - penalties are of two kinds: disciplinary - those applied for the maintenance of courtesy and good order (see Law 91), and procedural - penalties (additional to any rectification) awarded in the Director's discretion in cases of procedural irregularities (see Law 90). Penalty card - a card subject to disposition under Law 50. Play - 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board. Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is faced; contestants' rights and powers in the play period each expire as the relevant Law provides. The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted). Premium Points - any points earned other than trick points (see Law 77). Psychic call (commonly "psych[e]" or "psychic") - a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length. Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention. Redouble - a call over an opponent's double, increasing the scoring value of fulfilled or defeated contracts (see Laws 19B and 77). Retracted - see "Withdrawn". RHO - Right-hand opponent. Rotation - the clockwise progression of the normal turns to call or play; also the clockwise order in which, one at a time, the cards are recommended to be dealt. Round - a part of a session played without progression of players. Session - an extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.) Side - two players at a table who constitute a partnership against the other two players. Slam - A contract to win six odd tricks (called Small Slam), or to win seven odd tricks (called Grand Slam). Sorted deck - a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition. Suit - One of four groups of cards in the pack, each group comprising thirteen cards and having a characteristic symbol: spades (S), hearts (H), diamonds (D), clubs (C). Team - two or more pairs playing in different compass directions at different tables but for a common score (applicable regulations may permit teams of more than four members). Trick - the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead. Trick Points - points scored by declarer's side for fulfilling the contract (see Law 77). Trump - each card of the denomination named in a suit contract. Turn - the correct time at which a player is due to call or play. Undertrick - each trick by which declarer's side falls short of fulfilling the contract (see Law 77). Unintended - involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. Vulnerability - the conditions for assigning premiums and undertrick penalties (see Law 77). Withdrawn - actions said to be "withdrawn" include actions that are "cancelled" and cards that are "retracted". Richard Hills: For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing between the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal". ;-) 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Oct 13 00:25:49 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:25:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004201c80d1e$d8195d20$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Jerry Fusselman: > >>What Herman is saying---please recall---is that >>both schools require breaking a law. Wouldn't >>your time be better spent trying to disprove >>Herman's contention that MS also breaks the >>laws rather than arguing precisely what Herman >>agrees with and has granted all along? > > Richard Hills: > ... > If Jerry is still seeking something tangible > which justifies the Majority School, then he > might try reading the WBF Code of Practice, which > is much more lucid about the principles > underpinning bridge than the dog's breakfast of > the 1997 Lawbook. For example -> > > 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." > > What's the (rhetorical) problem? > > The non-rhetorical answer is that there will be > no problem for ANZAC bridge players on and after > February 2008, since that is the month (according > to information from a senior ABF Director) that > Aussies and Kiwis will see the De Wael School > formally flung into the dustbin of history. > > ;-) > Actually, it's there already, but you need to look at the headers. Law 73 is about communications with Partner. 73A is about correct communication with Partner, while 73B is about incorrect communication with Partner. Then, all you have to do is to realize that your opponent is not your partner. An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner. It is a communication to the opponents. Both 73A and 73B are completely irrelevant to answering an opponent's question about system, unless that answer is also a direct attempt to communicate with Partner as well, in which case 73B2 may well apply. Partner's responsibility when giving an answer to an opponent is defined in 73C. The Laws governing communication to opponents are L20F, L40, and of course, L75. None of these are broken if you answer a question about partnership agreements correctly, but all of them are broken if you don't. The failure of the dWs is that in actuality no Laws at all are broken if you explain system to the opponents correctly. There's also a covert failure of dWs that's probably been talked about, but I'll bring it up since I wasn't here for it. What happens if the opponents don't ask partner a question, so that you don't know that he's forgotten system, and you then answer a question that wakes him up? How do you know that partner is asleep, and you're providing the deadly UI, if opponents don't ask? Do you give MI if partner hesitates on a routine bid, suggesting that he might have forgotten system? In fact, it is impossible to answer an opponents' question without giving UI. In the case of MI being present, you know that the auction is screwed, but in all other cases, you're simply hoping (usually correctly) that the auction is on course. But the deadly UI might still be waking partner up (unless you know he's on track because he answered a question correctly...but that's using UI too...). If you accept the principle that giving Partner UI is illegal, you cannot correctly answer any questions at all. You might be waking him up without knowing it... The whole concept of the dWs school appears to be founded on the principle that Partner is an unethical and unlawful player, and will not abide by his responsibilities under L73C and L16 if you give a correct answer to an opponent's question when Partner has forgotten system. My solution to that particular dilemma is to not play with such a partner. Hirsch Davis From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 13 01:18:51 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:18:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws In-Reply-To: <000201c80cef$6607bf80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c80cef$6607bf80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <471000DB.3090605@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all numbered (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy dentification of and reference to a particular footnote. I notice that the new laws as they are now published use only asterisks for reference to footnotes, one or more asterisks as required to distinguish between more than one footnote within the same law, but there seems to be no way of distinguishing between footnotes related to separate laws? Is there any hope for having the footnotes uniquely (and officially) identified? [nige1] Good idea and simple to do, immediately, in a revised edition on the web. Failing that, provided the WBFLC avoid PDF format, local jurisdictions can easily number the footnotes themselves. From adam at irvine.com Sat Oct 13 01:26:54 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:26:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:46:12 +0200." <000201c80cef$6607bf80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200710122326.QAA13512@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all numbered > (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy identification of and > reference to a particular footnote. I'm not sure this is universally so even in the present Laws. I seem to recall that a number of years ago, in a discussion on BLML about something, I referred to "footnote 22" or something; and some other BLMLer (perhaps David Stevenson) had no idea what I was talking about, since the version of the Laws they were using didn't have numbered footnotes, but instead had the footnotes right below the Law that referred to them, like the PDF of the new Laws on ecatsbridge.com does. -- Adam From dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk Sat Oct 13 01:34:58 2007 From: dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk (David Collier) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:34:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Richard Hills: > >For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing between >the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal". I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word "convention" appears in the new Law 40B. What are we supposed to deduce from the lack of a definition? _________________________________________________________________ Can you see your house from the sky? Try Live Search Maps http://maps.live.com From adam at irvine.com Sat Oct 13 01:50:07 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:50:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:34:58 BST." Message-ID: <200710122349.QAA13823@mailhub.irvine.com> David Collier wrote: > >Richard Hills: > > > >For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing between > >the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal". > > I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word "convention" > appears in the new Law 40B. What are we supposed to deduce from the lack of > a definition? The new Law 40B says, if I read it correctly: Any partnership agreement is a Special Partnership Understanding (SPU) if the Regulating Authority (RA) says it is; conventions are automatically considered SPU's unless the RA says they aren't. Since this pretty much gives RA full authority to determine which agreements are SPU's, I'd say that the definition of "convention" could also be left up to the RA's, since their responsibility here is to make known which agreements are SPU's and which ones aren't. On the other hand, I'm not sure... the last phrase seems to say that calls with "artificial meanings" are always SPU's, and RA's can't designate them otherwise. On the other hand, the ordering of the sentence is a bit strange and maybe that "unless" clause applies both to "conventions" and to "calls with artificial meanings". Or is the list in this sentence supposed to be exhaustive---i.e. "conventions" and "calls with artificial meanings" are SPU's if the RA doesn't say otherwise, and others (even if they meet the "not readily understood" criterion of 40B1(a)) are not? It's not clear to me what the authors were trying to say here. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 13 02:28:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:28:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, We Will All Go Together When We Go: [snip] And we will all go together when we go, Ev'ry Hottentot and ev'ry Eskimo. When the air becomes uranious, We will all go simultaneous, Yes, we all will go together when we all go together, Yes, we all will go together when we go. LAW 33 - SIMULTANEOUS CALLS A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call. Richard Hills: Law 33 is unchanged from its 1997 predecessor. However, it is possible that Law 33 may be discussed in the forthcoming Appendix, as there has been some quibbling about the meaning of "simultaneous" in the bridge world. Of course, most blmlers will know that Albert Einstein demonstrated that "simultaneous" was a meaningless concept in the real world. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 13 02:46:37 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:46:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4710156D.40505@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] I have no wish to stifle the opinions, however unlikely of implementation, of such as Nigel. Much occasions no more than a wry smile and the delete button, but occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished. [nige1] Grattan's kind words echo an equally generous assessment of the new laws: "Occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished." :) :) Seriously, the new edition of the laws seems easier for players to understand and for directors to enforce. Above all, I hope that this edition helps us to enjoy the game and decellerates its decline. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 13 02:53:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:53:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, The Wiener Schnitzel Waltz: [snip] Oh, I remember the night I held you so tight, As we danced to the Wiener Schnitzel Waltz. Your face was aglow (but your teeth rather yellowish), The music was lovely, quite Ivor Novello-ish. I drank wine, you drank chocolate malts, And we both turned quite green to the strains of the Wiener Schnitzel Waltz. LAW 32 - DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE OUT OF ROTATION A double or redouble out of rotation may be accepted at the option of the opponent next in rotation (see Law 29A), except that an inadmissible double or redouble may never be accepted (if offender's LHO nevertheless calls see Law 36). If the call out of rotation is not accepted it is cancelled, the lead restriction in Law 26B may apply, and: A. Made at Offender's Partner's Turn to Call if a double or redouble out of rotation has been made when it was the offender's partner's turn to call the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 if the pass damages the non-offending side). B. Made at RHO's Turn to Call if a double or redouble out of rotation has been made at offender's RHO's turn to call, then: 1. If offender's RHO passes, offender must repeat his out-of-rotation double or redouble and there is no rectification unless the double or redouble is inadmissible, in which case Law 36 applies. 2. If offender's RHO bids, doubles or redoubles, the offender may in turn make any legal call but offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. See Law 23 if the pass damages the non-offending side. Richard Hills: I find auctions rotating around the bridge table more enjoyable than rotating around the dance floor to a waltz. Not only am I left-handed, but I also have two left feet. Only minor changes made to Law 32. "Penalty" has been replaced by "rectification", and "lead penalty" has been replaced by "lead restriction". In Law 32B2 the 1997 phrase "If offender's RHO bids" has now been expanded to "If offender's RHO bids, doubles or redoubles". Plus a hole in the Law 32 preamble has been plugged by including a cross-reference to Law 36. 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 Oct 13 03:12:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:12:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, The Wild West is Where I Want To Be Along the trail you'll find me lopin' Where the spaces are wide open, In the land of the old A. E. C. Where the scenery's attractive And the air is radioactive, Oh, the wild west is where I want to be. [snip] LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has passed partner's artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply: A. RHO's Turn When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then: 1. If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification. 2. If that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call (a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23). (b) does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23). B. Partner's or LHO's Turn When the offender has bid at his partner's turn to call, or at his LHO's turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non- offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. * An illegal call by RHO is rectified as usual. **Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Richard Hills: In a traditional Wild West movie, at some stage the Sheriff tells his assembled posse: "Head 'em off at the pass." A major error occurred when the 1975 Lawbook was updated to become the 1987 Lawbook, rendering those sections of the Lawbook which dealt with artificial passes even more incomprehensible than most other parts of the 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks. So the 2007 Lawbook carefully refers to "an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call". 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 Sat Oct 13 04:14:15 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:14:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [personal] Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710121914i1a22b3beq80fdad2ca19cf39c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/12/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Keith McNeil, Match Your Bidding Against The Masters, pp 162-163: > > Imps, North-South vulnerable. > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > Pass Pass Dble ? > > What should South call with: > > S AQ86 > H KQ93 > D J95 > C 62 > > What price five-card majors now? > The culpret is not five-card majors---it is combining five-card majors with strong notrumps. Five-card majors with weak notrumps works quite well. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 13 04:24:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:24:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, Who's Next? First we got the bomb and that was good, 'cause we love peace and motherhood. Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay, 'cause the balance of power's maintained that way. Who's next? [snip] LAW 30 - PASS OUT OF ROTATION When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply (if the pass is artificial see C): A. Before Any Player Has Bid When a player has passed out of rotation before any player has bid the offender must pass when next it is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply. B. After Any Player Has Bid 1. When a pass out of rotation is made at offender's RHO's turn to call after any player has bid, offender must pass when next it is his turn to call. 2. (a) When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner's turn to call, the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call, and Law 23 may apply. (b) Offender's partner may make any sufficient bid, or may pass, but may not double or redouble at that turn, and Law 23 may apply. 3. After any player has bid a pass out of rotation at offender's LHO's turn to call is treated as a change of call. Law 25 applies. C. When Pass Is Artificial When a pass out of rotation is artificial or is a pass of an artificial call, Law 31, not Law 30, applies. Richard Hills: As I sit comfortably at my PC, carefully drafting nuanced emails about the 2007 Lawbook, it is somewhat disconcerting to realise how awfully, awfully close we came to never having a 1963 Lawbook. For those blmlers who like movies with a bit of substance to them, I can recommend a visit to the video store to hire the DVD of "Thirteen Days", a highly effective and entertaining docudrama about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Although perhaps "entertaining" is not the mot juste. "Terrifying" might be better. 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 anna at ecats.co.uk Sat Oct 13 04:38:10 2007 From: anna at ecats.co.uk (Anna Gudge) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:38:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf Message-ID: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801DA6ADFD@garfield.ecats.co.uk> Dear Henk Please could you release any messages that come in from a WBF computer signed Grattan Endicott - they are concerning the new Laws and need release ! Many thanks anna (in Shanghai !) PS I am doing a regular (hopefully daily) blog from the World Championships in Shanghai - go to www.ecatsbridge.com to read it ! ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/ From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 13 05:08:01 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:08:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws In-Reply-To: <200710122326.QAA13512@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c80d46$43d62a80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sven wrote: > > > A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all > numbered > > (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy identification of and > > reference to a particular footnote. > > I'm not sure this is universally so even in the present Laws. I seem > to recall that a number of years ago, in a discussion on BLML about > something, I referred to "footnote 22" or something; and some other > BLMLer (perhaps David Stevenson) had no idea what I was talking about, > since the version of the Laws they were using didn't have numbered > footnotes, but instead had the footnotes right below the Law that > referred to them, like the PDF of the new Laws on ecatsbridge.com > does. That would be fine so long as there is never more than one footnote to any law. But alas, some laws have more - up to three footnotes what I have noticed. So for instance "the footnote to Law 41" (or "the Law 41 footnote") is presently an insufficient reference. (Fair enough: Law 41*** will be OK as a reference, but I fear it will require a computer-like mind to grasp). We have unnumbered footnotes in our Norwegian translation of the present laws, and we do even have some extra footnotes added by our NBO. While preparing for the translation of the new laws I asked that we should keep the WBFLC footnote numbers for consistency. Imagine my disappointment when I noticed that WBFLC apparently had dropped the numbering? And I do indeed hope that Richard will accept my statement: I intended my comment as constructive comment, not as negative criticism! Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Oct 14 05:34:00 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:34:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <470F68B8.6020003@bridgefederation.ch> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> <470F68B8.6020003@bridgefederation.ch> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071013203307.0c1240a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> I am very worried that the latest absence of Herman is that he is digesting these and we are about to start Bridge Wars II Tony (Sydney) At 05:29 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote: >http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Oct 13 12:44:10 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:44:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4710156D.40505@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002601c80d85$fd4aac40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Grattan Endicott] > I have no wish to stifle the opinions, however unlikely of > implementation, of such as Nigel. Much occasions no more > than a wry smile and the delete button, but occasionally, > one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the > sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and > polished. > > [nige1] > Grattan's kind words echo an equally generous assessment of the new laws: > > "Occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches > the sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished." > :) :) > > Seriously, the new edition of the laws seems easier for players to > understand and for directors to enforce. Above all, I hope that this > edition helps us to enjoy the game and decellerates its decline. In my first brief scan I had noticed that the serpentine grammar of the 97 Laws had in places been slightly unwound. This, I agree Nigel, can only be a good thing. John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Oct 13 19:43:01 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:43:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> > From: Yvan Calame > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp Thanks, Yvan. No doubt along with others, I'm still trying to digest the changes, but a few things of interest pop up. I am, by the way, enormously grateful to those who spent so much time working on the new version. 1. L25B as we have known and loved :-) it is gone! 2. There are many, many clarifications of language with regard to issues that have been discussed on BLML. Good job. 3. I am not convinced that changing "convention" to "artificial call" is a big step forward. The definition of "artificial call:" a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. seems to make an ordinary "nothing to say" pass into an artificial call, at least if the pass occurs after at least one bid. Also, despite not being defined, "convention" is used in at least one Law, though its exact definition is largely irrelevant in that context. 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. Further, the Laws purport to impose NBO regulation on all games within the boundaries of that NBO, even independent clubs not affiliated in any way with the NBO. (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their games.) 5. L75B is changed: [the player whose partner has given MI] if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. Note separation of calling the director and correcting the explanation; the former is now a weaker obligation than before, though still an infraction if not done. But then: If [the player] becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends. But for a defender, failing to correct the explanation is no longer even an infraction! I confess to being astonished by this. No doubt there will be many other topics for discussion! From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:48:53 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:48:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710131048w215754d3gc0af2105fd764106@mail.gmail.com> > > LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or > regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds > as follows: > > A. Director's Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view > on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance > with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. > ... On 10/12/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: ... > A second big advantage of Law 85A1 is that it refutes > a common misconception by some pacifist Directors that if the > facts are disputed, then one should automatically believe the > putative offending side and rule that no infraction has > occurred. Does it really do that? I am thinking that a pacifist has no trouble asking the putative offending side a question and believing that evidence. I wonder if some other BLMLers really think that this version of Law 85A1 will make for less of this kind of director pacifism. Jerry Fusselman From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 13 19:47:39 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:47:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Countdown References: <4710156D.40505@ntlworld.com> <002601c80d85$fd4aac40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <00d401c80dc1$279fea60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John Probst" > In my first brief scan I had noticed that the serpentine grammar of the 97 > Laws had in places been slightly unwound. This, I agree Nigel, can only be a > good thing. Still too many big words (e.g., promulgate) and too much passive voice ("is deemed"), but numerous improvements. I see they dodged the problem of defining "convention" under DEFINITIONS, while still using the word. The final revision to the initial language about asking questions eviscerates the whole of Law 20F and is an abomination. Players during the auction and defenders are now allowed to question individual calls with impunity. Law 16 applies? In general, baloney. Only the most outrageous examples are caught and "rectified." At least they could have reworded 20F2, which says that only declarer can question an individual call. Why not simplify? Law 20F. At his turn to bid or play a player may question the meaning of any opposing call or calls, including blah, blah, but questioniing a single call may be subject to Law 16B1. The tack-on was lazy. Worse, it now permits our local cheaters to get away with unethical questioning and gives pros the opportunity to use the "pro question" (whose answer is known to the pro but perhaps not to the customer) about a single call. Damage is usually very hard to determine, so they get away with it. Another tacked-on change (to 16B1) says that we can call the TD at any time following an instance of UI, even before there is evidence of an infraction. First it says "at end of play," deleting "as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." and then says in a tacked-on footnote, never mind, you can call the TD at any time. Personally, I'm going to call the TD if sight of dummy tells me there was an infraction by that player, otherwise I'll wait until end of play. The footnote advice causes too much unnecessary work for TDs, who can do NOTHING until play is completed. In the great majority of such cases there is no evidence of an infraction. Yes, that's for the TD to decide, but they are too busy to take on that task for every instance of UI. The only reason to call the TD earlier is to help determine whether UI existed if the opponents deny it (good luck with that!) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 12 16:08:32 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:08:32 +0900 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <470F68B8.6020003@bridgefederation.ch> References: <470F68B8.6020003@bridgefederation.ch> Message-ID: <200710121408.AA11058@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, I attach a single-file version of the changes to the laws (these are in a zillion separate files on the WBF Home Page) in the hopes this will be useful to those of you who have to do translations, or who just want to see what's changed.) Cheers, Bob Yvan Calame writes: > >http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: marked up final laws.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 557488 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071012/368df4d3/attachment-0001.pdf From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 12 16:54:52 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:54:52 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Obviously_this_is_the_p?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rime_duty?= References: <3E7D3ED0-A10B-49D6-9032-EF0FCF93B481@starpower.net> Message-ID: <470F8ABB.000009.84019@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Quite so; see above. The MS reads TFLB (with help from the WBF's -- and others' -- official pronouncements) as saying that the "reminding" that the Herman chooses to avoid is in fact authorized (indeed, required), not an infraction. May I point to L73B1 ? I read that one as explicitly disallowing this inter alia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071012/efb7b91e/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/20071012/efb7b91e/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071012/efb7b91e/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 12 17:20:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:20:23 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Obviously_this_is_the_p?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rime_duty?= References: <000501c80cdf$3273cf70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <470F90B6.00000C.84019@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : raija Date : 12/10/2007 16:48:28 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty If transmission of UI were a serious offence, then you would likely find bridge nothing but a "serious offence". It is the use of the UI that is an infraction. AG : really ? Then would you please explain to me the sentence : "it is an offence to communicate through ... explanations given or not given" in L73. (well, 'm retranslating from French, but the equivalent sentence will be found) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071012/58514769/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/20071012/58514769/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071012/58514769/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Oct 13 22:35:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:35:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws In-Reply-To: <200710122326.QAA13512@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200710122326.QAA13512@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <07628D00-7D0F-4D00-B8F9-2BDD1A5B9B0A@starpower.net> On Oct 12, 2007, at 7:26 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Sven wrote: > >> A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all >> numbered >> (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy identification of and >> reference to a particular footnote. > > I'm not sure this is universally so even in the present Laws. I seem > to recall that a number of years ago, in a discussion on BLML about > something, I referred to "footnote 22" or something; and some other > BLMLer (perhaps David Stevenson) had no idea what I was talking about, > since the version of the Laws they were using didn't have numbered > footnotes, but instead had the footnotes right below the Law that > referred to them, like the PDF of the new Laws on ecatsbridge.com > does. As does my ACBL-published copy of the 1997 laws (original hardbound edition). I don't think I've ever seen a version of the laws that had numbered footnotes; sounds like a rather good idea. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Sat Oct 13 23:10:46 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:10:46 +0900 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <200710121408.AA11058@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200710121408.AA11058@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200710132110.AA11072@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, In some if not all of the laws in the file I sent you the suit symbols are screwed up. This is a problem in the original files (see below for example). http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/2007%20Laws/Laws%2076%20-%2078.pdf I hope the WBFLC will fix this soon. Best, Bob Robert Geller ????????: >Dear BLMLers, > >I attach a single-file version of the changes to the laws (these are in >a zillion separate files on the WBF Home Page) in the hopes this will >be useful to those of you who have to do translations, or who just want to see >what's changed.) > >Cheers, >Bob > >Yvan Calame writes: >> >>http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 13 23:26:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:26:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Obviously_this_is_the_p?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rime_duty?= In-Reply-To: <470F90B6.00000C.84019@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <000701c80ddf$aa00b3e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. AG : really ? Then would you please explain to me the sentence : "it is an offence to communicate through ... explanations given or not given" in L73. (well, 'm retranslating from French, but the equivalent sentence will be found) SP: No problem. It is an offence to vary the manner in which you ask questions to an opponent or answer questions from an opponent in order to communicate information to your partner. Regards Sven. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Oct 13 23:35:04 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5C208CAE4BE244F4A4120A6624A36162@erdos> Steve Willner writes: > 5. L75B is changed: > [the player whose partner has given MI] if he is to be declarer or > dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of > the explanation. > > Note separation of calling the director and correcting the explanation; > the former is now a weaker obligation than before, though still an > infraction if not done. This is good, as calling the Director serves little purpose much of the time, and it has never been honored. I frequently will say at the end of the auction, "There was a failure to Alert; 1NT-2C-2H-2NT denies four spades," when I do not expect a problem, and this clarifies that the infraction is of the same type as making a claim without a statement: there is no penalty as long as there is no problem. And L9B1 has also been corrected, so that the general obligation to call the Director is dowgraded to "should" (otherwise, it would override L75, since attention has been drawn to an irregularity): The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. > But then: > > If [the player] becomes a defender, he calls the Director and > corrects the explanation when play ends. > > But for a defender, failing to correct the explanation is no longer even > an infraction! I confess to being astonished by this. This is an oversight, but what is intended is clear from context. More of a problem is that L20F5 has not been corrected to agree with the new L75; calling the Director is still a "must" here (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 03:01:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:01:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710131048w215754d3gc0af2105fd764106@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 85A1: >>In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on >>the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance >>with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Jerry Fusselman asked: >Does it really do that? I am thinking that a pacifist has no >trouble asking the putative offending side a question and >believing that evidence. I wonder if some other BLMLers >really think that this version of Law 85A1 will make for less >of this kind of director pacifism. Richard Hills: The final phrase of Law 85A1 is "evidence he _is able to_ collect", not "evidence he _does_ collect". So a pacifist Director who chooses to collect evidence _only_ from the putative offending side has committed a Director's Error (Law 82C) and should be over-ruled by the Regulating Authority (Law 93C) or its delegate (Law 80A3). 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 Oct 14 03:15:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:15:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French: >I see they dodged the problem of defining >"convention" under DEFINITIONS, while still using >the word. INTRODUCTION TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. There have been many developments in duplicate bridge over the last ten years and there are no signs that these changes have stopped. The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure the Laws were updated so as to cope with past changes and to establish a framework that can cope with future developments. Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen. Bridge is played in different ways in different countries so the Laws give more power to Regulating Authorities to make controlling regulations. This is particularly so in the area of Special Partnership Understandings, in itself a new concept. Artificial bidding is a fact of life so an attempt has been made to solve problems, or to allow Regulating Authorities to solve problems, that arise when something goes wrong. We have tried to clarify the areas of responsibility of Regulating Authorities, Tournament Organizers and Directors and it is made clear that certain responsibilities may be either assigned or delegated. Many headings present in the 1997 Laws have been removed in the interests of streamlining their appearance. Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not". For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa. Richard Hills: It is important to note the final paragraph of the 2007 Introduction. This effectively defines the Introduction and the Definitions as Law Number Zero of the fabulous Lawbook. Marvin is incorrect in saying that the Drafting Committee "dodged the problem" of conventions. Rather, as Law Number Zero makes clear, the old concept of conventional versus non-conventional calls and plays has been replaced by the new concept of Special Partnership Understandings versus general partnership understandings. Note that Law 27 on Insufficient Bids has been consequently modified. The reason that the word "convention" appears just once in the new fabulous Lawbook, in Law 40B1(b), is purely for transitional reasons. The Drafting Committee did not want to invalidate pre-existing regulations created by Regulating Authorities which happened to use the word "convention". 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 henk at ripe.net Sat Oct 13 23:14:25 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:14:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf In-Reply-To: <4711175F.20606@ripe.net> References: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801DA6ADFD@garfield.ecats.co.uk> <4711175F.20606@ripe.net> Message-ID: <47113531.9050805@ripe.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Anna Gudge wrote: > >> Please could you release any messages that come in from a WBF computer >> signed Grattan Endicott - they are concerning the new Laws and need >> release ! I just checked and didn't see any mails from Grattan on a WBF machine. If they weren't sent from Grattan's regular account but from some other account, this is good: mail by non subscribers is discarded automatically. To post them, subscribe from the account in Shanghai. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From henk at ripe.net Sat Oct 13 23:14:25 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:14:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf In-Reply-To: <4711175F.20606@ripe.net> References: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801DA6ADFD@garfield.ecats.co.uk> <4711175F.20606@ripe.net> Message-ID: <47113531.9050805@ripe.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Anna Gudge wrote: > >> Please could you release any messages that come in from a WBF computer >> signed Grattan Endicott - they are concerning the new Laws and need >> release ! I just checked and didn't see any mails from Grattan on a WBF machine. If they weren't sent from Grattan's regular account but from some other account, this is good: mail by non subscribers is discarded automatically. To post them, subscribe from the account in Shanghai. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From henk at ripe.net Sun Oct 14 00:12:51 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:12:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <471142E3.4040103@ripe.net> Hi, > 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial > games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American territory? I.e. the game will be in the US, thus ACBL land. (The last time I was on such a base, it looked like the US, pay in US$ instead of DEM or NLG and the German/Dutch laws for shop opening hours didn't apply which was great.) > (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their > games.) Yes, I wonder what problem we are trying to solve here ;-) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From henk at ripe.net Sun Oct 14 00:12:51 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:12:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <471142E3.4040103@ripe.net> Hi, > 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial > games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American territory? I.e. the game will be in the US, thus ACBL land. (The last time I was on such a base, it looked like the US, pay in US$ instead of DEM or NLG and the German/Dutch laws for shop opening hours didn't apply which was great.) > (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their > games.) Yes, I wonder what problem we are trying to solve here ;-) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 03:47:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:47:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c80d46$43d62a80$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >And I do indeed hope that Richard will accept my statement: I >intended my comment as constructive comment, not as negative >criticism! Richard Hills: Of course; hence the smiley at the end of my previous posting. The reason that I did not choose numbered footnotes, as were used in the 1997 European version of the Lawbook (which was the source for my left-hand column "original texts" in that version of the Laws on the ecats website where the 1997 Laws and the 2007 Laws are laid out in parallel) is that in the 1997 European version of the Lawbook the numbered footnotes were at the traditional bottom of the page (or sometimes at the bottom of two pages), so sometimes tended to float away from the pertinent Law and thus be missed by Directors. However, I have no objection to the location of the footnotes being constant, but their asterisks being replaced by bracketed numbers, {1} {2} {3} et cetera. Bracketed numbers were impractical when I was responsible for version control of the Lawbook, as each Law was revised, rerevised and rererevised many many times, including many additions and subtractions of footnotes. I am forwarding to Grattan Endicott this Sven suggestion to change footnote asterisks to footnote numbers for Grattan to consider when he returns home from Shanghai. 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 Oct 14 03:54:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:54:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [personal] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710121914i1a22b3beq80fdad2ca19cf39c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: The culprit is not five-card majors---it is combining five-card majors with strong notrumps. Five-card majors with weak notrumps works quite well. Jerry Fusselman * * * Indeed. In my favourite Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed on request) I use five-card majors, a weak (11-14) 1NT and a strong (15+) 1C. 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 Oct 14 04:24:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:24:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Afghanistan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20071011094731.0283ecc0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>You, East, hold: >> >>J983 >>K54 >>QJ74 >>K2 >> >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? >I bid 3NT, showing a stopper. I'm fortunate enough to >have one whatever my partner meant (the probability of >J983 not being a stopper, behind the long suit, is >small). > >No second choice. > > >Best regards > > Alain In real life screens were not in use. North-South did not have a partnership agreement about their defence to the two-way 1C opening bid (showing either a Standard American 1C opening bid, or a Standard American 1D opening bid). Rather, North-South merely agreed to play their normal methods should the opponents open 1C. So when North overcalled 2C, he was using the normal method of "natural" over a Standard American 1D. And when South explained North's 2C, she gave the normal explanation of "Michaels Cuebid", which was the normal North-South agreement for a 2C overcall of a Standard American 1C. Due to the misinformation, East did indeed rebid 3NT. North doubled for a club lead, South (still unaware) led a spade, but South's Rueful Rabbit lead actually gained a trick for the defence, as South's ace of clubs was able to decapitate East's king of clubs for a penalty of 1100. After the dust steeled, revealing the misinformation, the Director was summoned. Because the complete deal was: Q7 A987 A QJT865 AK62 J983 QJ63 K53 KT2 QJ74 97 K2 T54 T2 98653 A43 the Director adjusted the score to 3H by West, one off. Since the score reduction from +1100 to +50 meant that the offending side lost the Grand Final of Canberra's State Open Teams, they appealed the Director's decision, on the grounds that East's 3NT after the misinformation was a gambling bid, so that East was likely to make the same decision to bid 3NT on correct information. In a unanimous decision the three-person Appeals Committee upheld the Director's decision. 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 Oct 14 04:39:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:39:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471142E3.4040103@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct >>extraterritorial games, e.g., the ACBL games in >>Britain and Germany. Henk Uijterwaal: >Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American >territory? I.e. the game will be in the US, thus >ACBL land. > >(The last time I was on such a base, it looked like >the US, pay in US$ instead of DEM or NLG and the >German/Dutch laws for shop opening hours didn't >apply which was great.) Law 80A1(c): The Regulating Authority under these laws is ... for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Steve was correct to caveat his statement with "appears". It "appears" to me that an NBO's territory does not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence with the NBO's _nation's_ territory. For example, the EBU's nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the EBU's writ does not run in that part of the United Kingdom which is the Principality of Wales, where the WBU instead has authority. (Although the EBU and the WBU sensibly have nearly, but not quite, parallel regulations.) 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 Sun Oct 14 22:42:30 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:42:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in the new L27C(1) of changing an attempted insufficient bid, with a double or pass which "incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid". Could anyone give an example of what this means? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Oct 14 23:06:56 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:06:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014140459.0c1ac1a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 01:42 PM 14/10/2007, you wrote: >I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in >the new L27C(1) of changing an attempted >insufficient bid, with a double or pass which >"incorporates the information contained in the >insufficient bid". Could anyone give an example >of what this means? > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > Surely it doesn't mean 1C (1S) 1H, oops double?? perhaps double could be said to "incorporate" a 4 card heart suit?? Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 07:00:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:00:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] New L27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in the >new L27C(1) of changing an attempted insufficient bid, >with a double or pass which "incorporates the >information contained in the insufficient bid". > >Could anyone give an example of what this means? A. D. Hope (1907-2000), "Easter Hymn" (third verse): The City of God is built like other cities: Judas negotiates the loans you float; You will meet Caiaphas upon committees; You will be glad of Pilate's casting vote. LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, Law 31 applies. B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. C. Replaced at Lowest Level by Bid, Double or Pass 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following. 2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. D. Replaced by Any Other Call 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced, except as 27C1 allows, by any bid or a pass the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23. 2. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a double or redouble, except as 27C1 allows, the double or redouble must be withdrawn and replaced by a pass. The offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23. E. Premature Replacement If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows, his substitution stands. The Director applies C, D or F, accordingly. F. Replaced with an Insufficient Bid If the offender attempts to replace the insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled and a pass is substituted. His partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23. * as to number of odd tricks, denomination, or declarer Richard Hills: All blmlers have a duty to genuflect towards the City of God, the WBF Drafting Committee. However, successive drafting committees dismally failed to design an equitable Law 27 in 1975, in 1987, and in 1997. Because of the intractability of equitable resolution of insufficient bids, even the current enlightened Sanhedrin was unable to resolve Law 27 before their Shanghai meetings. Eventually, at the Sanhedrin's final meeting in Shanghai, a lateral-thinking inspiration resulted in the creation of Law 27C1. The forthcoming advisory Appendix to the Lawbook will no doubt fully explain Law 27C1, but unfortunately it was a trifle difficult to draft that Appendix in the few hours between finalisation, ratification and publication of the 2007 Laws. For what it is worth, my highly unofficial Law 27C1 example is: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 1S 1H(1) (2) X (3) (1) East did not notice North's overcall, instead mistakenly thinking that North had passed. (2) South declines to accept East's insufficient bid. (3) East replaces their insufficient bid of 1H with a negative double, which in the East-West methods guarantees four or more hearts, and now Law 27C1 permits the auction to continue for both sides with no restrictions (although other parts of Law 27 note that the Director may later need to award an adjusted score). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 14 07:08:02 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:08:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0710131048w215754d3gc0af2105fd764106@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710132208i4b5bcdby4ae586fe5697a5f8@mail.gmail.com> > Law 85A1: > > >>In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on > >>the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance > >>with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >Does it really do that? I am thinking that a pacifist has no > >trouble asking the putative offending side a question and > >believing that evidence. I wonder if some other BLMLers > >really think that this version of Law 85A1 will make for less > >of this kind of director pacifism. > > Richard Hills: > > The final phrase of Law 85A1 is "evidence he _is able to_ > collect", not "evidence he _does_ collect". > > So a pacifist Director who chooses to collect evidence _only_ > from the putative offending side has committed a Director's > Error (Law 82C) and should be over-ruled by the Regulating > Authority (Law 93C) or its delegate (Law 80A3). > Impressive distinction. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Oct 14 07:22:22 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:22:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> "Tony Musgrove" writes: >I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in > the new L27C(1) of changing an attempted > insufficient bid, with a double or pass which > "incorporates the information contained in the > insufficient bid". Could anyone give an example > of what this means? West bids 4NT, Blackwood. North bids 5H. East bids 5D, one ace, then corrects it to pass, which shows one ace under DOPI. South opens 1S. West bids 2H. North bids 3H. East bids 3H, then corrects to double, showing a raise to 3H. The Law also deals with another common situation of conventional insufficient bids, a 2C Stayman response to 2NT. Responder can now correct that to 3C without rectification (I prefer the old word "penalty".) In all three of these cases, there is little new information given by the correction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 07:36:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:36:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, The Irish Ballad: [snip] She set her sister's hair on fire, Sing rickety-tickety-tin, She set her sister's hair on fire, And as the smoke and flame rose high'r, Danced around the funeral pyre, Playing a violin, -olin, Playing a violin. [snip] And when at last the police came by, Sing rickety-tickety-tin, And when at last the police came by, Her little pranks she did not deny, To do so, she would have had to lie, And lying, she knew, was a sin, a sin, Lying, she knew, was a sin. [snip] LAW 84 - RULINGS ON AGREED FACTS When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows: A. No Rectification If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play. B. Law Provides Rectification If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented. C. Player's Option If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented. D. Director's Option The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). Richard Hills: I have been gratified to note that in recent years more and more of my opponents realise that lying is a sin, so more and more of the Director rulings are decided pursuant to Law 84, not Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). I think that a huge amount of credit for this culture change must go to Bobby Wolff, who in the 1990s used his successive "bully pulpits" of being ACBL President and then WBF President to campaign for Active Ethics. For example, Bobby Wolff's articles about the characters "Crypto" and "Telltale" were reprinted in the official ABF Newsletter at that time. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun Oct 14 09:23:25 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:23:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> Message-ID: <4711C3ED.2070809@cs.elte.hu> David Grabiner wrote: >"Tony Musgrove" writes: > > > >>I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in >>the new L27C(1) of changing an attempted >>insufficient bid, with a double or pass which >>"incorporates the information contained in the >>insufficient bid". Could anyone give an example >>of what this means? >> >> > >West bids 4NT, Blackwood. >North bids 5H. >East bids 5D, one ace, then corrects it to pass, which shows one ace under DOPI. > > W (N) E (S) 4N (5H) 5D... you are called (TD!) TD: first of all, South can accept the 5D and the bidding continues, otherwise.... South: I dont accept. TD: East, please come with me! (10 meters away) TD: what do your pass/double/calls mean in this situation? East: we play PODI/ we play DOPI / we have no agreement / etc. TD: thanks (same procedure with west) You can easily decide wether they would misunderstand each other or not. >South opens 1S. >West bids 2H. >North bids 3H. >East bids 3H, then corrects to double, showing a raise to 3H. > > Not easy to belive, this double means a raise to 3H. The majority of qualified players plays this double to show A,K or quenn in this suit or just the opposite: denies honeurs in the suit or requires partner to lead another suit. >The Law also deals with another common situation of conventional insufficient >bids, a 2C Stayman response to 2NT. Responder can now correct that to 3C >without rectification (I prefer the old word "penalty".) > >In all three of these cases, there is little new information given by the >correction. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 08:43:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:43:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), describing Robespierre: "The seagreen Incorruptible." LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. Richard Hills: The late Edgar Kaplan duly gets an acknowledgement in the Preface of the 2007 Lawbook, as a large amount of the Kaplanesque language of the 1975, 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks has been retained in the 2007 Lawbook. Like Robespierre, Edgar Kaplan chose to be a seagreen Incorruptible, and Edgar also launched reforms via a Revolution (in Edgar's case, from circa 1985 to circa 1995) which, like the French Revolution, had some unintended consequences in causing a Reign of Terror. Edgar's laudable aim was to discourage offending sides from committing their offences in the first place. To this end, Edgar caused the ACBL Laws Commission to give guidance to ACBL Directors that they should routinely rule against offending sides, and then let a subsequent Appeals Committee hearing decide which more sensible ruling should have been made initially. The 1997 Law 83 contained a fossilised remnant of this Reign of Terror against offending sides, as it ordered a Kaplanesque Director (after that Kaplanesque TD had routinely and arbitrarily ruled against the offending side) to advise the gobsmacked offending side that if they wished to miss their dinner break, they did have a right to appeal. The new Law 83 now has the criterion "... review ... **could well** be in order" to discourage the TD from advising offending sides to appeal when the TD has the strong belief that an appeal is unnecessary. This change was inserted because Edgar Kaplan's Reign of Terror has been superseded by the current policy that a Director should strive to produce a sensible ruling immediately. WBF Code of Practice, 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." 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 Oct 14 09:04:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:04:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, LAW 82 - RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS OF PROCEDURE A. Director's Duty It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. B. Rectification of Error To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws. 2. require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board. 3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws. C. Director's Error If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose. Richard Hills: Due to the spaghetti organisation of the 1997 Lawbook, some Aussie Directors mistakenly believed that once the Moving Finger of a player had written a call on the bidding pad, they then lacked the Piety and power to cancel that board. This caused problems when the two slowest pairs in the club encountered a difficult deal as the last board of the round, as other players then had to wait for half an hour before they could begin the next round. To improve the Wit of those Directors, the pre- existing cancellation power Directors had under the 1997 Law 12A2 is now clearly spelt out in the 2007 Law 82B2. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 14 09:16:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:16:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c80e32$3208f2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ........... > However, I have no objection to the location of the footnotes > being constant, but their asterisks being replaced by > bracketed numbers, {1} {2} {3} et cetera. I was very much in doubt about the lacking flexibility with numbered footnotes if a new footnote might be needed somewhere. Maybe the principle used by Grattan and Jens in their commentaries to the 1987 laws is an idea? (Notes numbered [40.1], [40.2] etc.) > Bracketed numbers were impractical when I was responsible for > version control of the Lawbook, as each Law was revised, > rerevised and rererevised many many times, including many > additions and subtractions of footnotes. Absolutely, and that is why I thought the asterisks were just temporary until the final issue of the laws. > I am forwarding to Grattan Endicott this Sven suggestion to > change footnote asterisks to footnote numbers for Grattan to > consider when he returns home from Shanghai. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 09:18:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:18:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: W. S. Gilbert, Iolanthe: The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my Lords, embody the Law. LAW 81 - THE DIRECTOR A. Official Status The Director is the official representative of the Tournament Organizer. B. Restrictions and Responsibilities 1. The Director is responsible for the on- site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer. 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: 1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game. 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. 4. to assess rectification when applicable and to exercise the powers given him in Laws 90 and 91. 5. to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non- offending side. 6. to adjust disputes. 7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee. 8. to report results for the official record if the Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with any other matters delegated to him by the Tournament Organizer. D. Delegation of Duties The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance. Richard Hills: To clarify that the Director is the Laws' excellent embodiment, the 1997 Law 72A6 has been transferred to the 2007 Law 81C. The other significant change in the 2007 Law 81 is the second sentence of Law 81B1. So if, for example, the Tournament Organizer has forgotten to create a tiebreak regulation, Law 81B1 now specifically gives the Director the power to create an ex post facto and ad hoc tiebreak regulation. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 09:52:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:52:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Yes Prime Minister, "The Ministerial Broadcast": Prime Minister Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, who is it who has the last word about the government of Britain? The British Cabinet or the American President?" Cabinet Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby: "You know that is a fascinating question. We often discuss it." Prime Minister Jim Hacker: "And what conclusion have you arrived at?" Cabinet Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Well, I must admit to be a bit of a heretic. I think it is the British Cabinet. But I know I am in the minority." LAW 80 - REGULATION AND ORGANIZATION A. The Regulating Authority 1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is (a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation. (b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices. (c) for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place. 2. The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and powers specified in these laws. 3. The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise). B. Tournament Organizer 1. The Regulating Authority may recognize an entity, designated the "Tournament Organizer", which subject to the requirements of the Regulating Authority and these laws is responsible for arranging and preparing a tournament or event. The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties may be delegated but the responsibility for their performance is retained. The Regulating Authority and the Tournament Organizer may be the same body. 2. The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: (a) appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director the players should designate a person to perform his functions. (b) to make advance arrangements for the tournament, including playing quarters, equipment and all other logistical requirements. (c) to establish the date and time of each session. (d) to establish the conditions of entry. (e) to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens - provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied). (f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. (g) (i) to arrange* for the appointment of any assistants required for the Director. (ii) to appoint other staff and prescribe their duties and responsibilities. (h) to arrange* for entries to be accepted and listed. (i) to establish suitable conditions of play and announce them to the contestants. (j) to arrange* for scores to be collected, results tabulated, and an official record made of them. (k) to make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93. (l) any other powers and duties conferred in these laws. * It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange. Richard Hills: Who has the last word on the official interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook? The WBF Laws Committee or the ACBL Board of Directors? Well, I must admit to be a bit of a heretic. I think it is the WBF Laws Committee. But I know I am in the minority. In Law 80B2(b) - and also in Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) - note the key word "advance". A Tournament Organizer lacks the power to create ex post facto changes to the conditions of contest. The directing staff at the 2006 Gold Coast Congress in Queensland faced considerable logistical difficulties when the Tournament Organizer unilaterally shortened a session by one round with no prior warning. However, if necessary, the Director can rectify an error in the Conditions of Contest (Law 81C3). Or alternatively, if practical, the Director may refer (Law 81C7) erroneous Conditions of Contest for resolution by the Regulating Authority (Law 93C2) or its delegate (Law 80A3). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 14 11:02:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:02:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000501c80cdf$3273cf70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> References: <001701c80aeb$15d2ada0$417808e0$@com><200710100324.AA10987@geller204.nifty.com> <470C8DE0.9080808@skynet.be><000e01c80b4b$b7290270$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470CF46B.8060200@skynet.be><000301c80b61$539201b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470D5A44.1050100@skynet.be><000b01c80b9e$585d58b0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470DD85F.80108@skynet.be><001b01c80c11$b2e887a0$42195e47@DFYXB361> <470E5822.2040504@skynet.be><000901c80c8d$e21b6f70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> <470F23FE.7050201@skynet.be> <000501c80cdf$3273cf70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4711DB40.6000506@skynet.be> raija wrote: >>> >> Indeed. Advantage sought and found. >> But what is the alternative? >> Deliberately giving UI? > > The Law requires a correct explanation of one's agreements. If that becomes > UI, the explainer is not at fault in any way. There is an official > interpretation of this existing. Again, see Grattan's post some time ago > and Richard's post of today. > Again, see my reply to that argument. Grattan referred to something else. > > >> Isn't that just as bad? I find that a serious offense as well. > > If transmission of UI were a serious offence, then you would likely find > bridge nothing but a "serious offence". It is the use of the UI that is an > infraction. > I was not talking of transmission og UI. I wrote "deliberately giving UI". And I do not mean the use of the word transmit rather than give. Deliberate transmission of UI _is_ a serious offence. Grattan's post you alluded to earlier was precisely about that distinction. The WBFLC did indeed write that _inadvertent_ transmission of UI is not a crime. By stating this, I believe they have made L73B1 even stronger, with regards to the deliberate transmission of UI. As Alain pointed out some messages ago, a player in the dWS situation has the choice of giving out the UI or not, so if he does so, the transmission is quite deliberate. >> And the aim of this thread is not about agreeing that something is a >> serious offense, we already about that. >> The aim of this thread is to find out which is the more serious offense. > > That target was reached long time ago by virtually everyone else but you. > Yes, by stating that it is "obvious". It is not! > >> By stating that one set of actions is "a serious offense", you bring >> nothing to this thread unless you also say how serious you find the >> other offense. And then preferably not just by your own opionion >> (because my opinion is just as valid as yours), but by referring to >> law numbers, sentences, and WBF philosophy. > > I may bring nothing to this thread, you might be correct in that. But my > opinion is unchaged: I will not lie in order to gain an advantage and I > will not approve of such practice by others; this I learned in Kindergarten. > I don't need a Law number or WBF interpretation. > and it is precisely this attitude which prevents you from listening to arguments. Let me try once again: You bid 4NT and partner explains it as Blackwood, which was not the way you intended it. You say nothing, as is your duty according to L75D2. Is that not a lie? Your opponents did not get the correct information. Maybe in Kindergarten it is OK to lie by omission, but any wife that gets cheated on will concur that this is just as bad. So L75D2 already tells you to lie! So if you refer to a lesson in Kindergarten to justify an action which is clearly forbidden by a law that is directly aimed at this situation, please allow me to say that I am not impressed. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 14 11:10:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:10:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001501c80cd4$16f90e00$44eb2a00$@com> References: <000b01c80b2e$450ed420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <470CBB53.6040802@skynet.be> <004901c80b8d$307fb830$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <470D5B8F.4060908@skynet.be> <000001c80c8b$2574d3e0$705e7ba0$@com> <470F242D.40500@skynet.be> <001501c80cd4$16f90e00$44eb2a00$@com> Message-ID: <4711DD16.3070000@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: >> David: L75D2, L73B1 > > Herman, you keep quoting these Laws, but they are irrelevant. Law 75D2 > refers to a situation in which a player's partner has given a mistaken > explanation of the partnership methods. But if you don't know whether your > partner has given a mistaken explanation of the partnership methods, Law > 75D2 does not apply to you. > David, please don't confuse the issue by starting to refer to other cases, however interesting they may be. > To clarify with reference to the example I gave: > > West North East South > 2D 2NT (1) Pass 3D (2) > > (1) Alerted by South and (though this did not happen at the table) explained > as minors. North, who believes that the partnership methods are that 2NT is > natural, may now "not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". Indeed. > According to the dWS, this means that... > (2) ...North should not alert 3D, because he may have to explain this as, or > South may from the alert alone infer that North thinks it is, a transfer to > hearts. This would be "an indication that a mistake has been made", contrary > to L75D2. Of course, North should still bid 3H, or break the transfer if his > hand warrants it - the dWS and I are in full agreement on this point. > Well, why is this only according to the dWS? This is what the law says, and it remains true whether you think there are other conflicting duties or not. Even if you later go on to say that the duty to correctly inform is the higher one, that does not change anything to L75D2, nor to the duties included therein. So your (2) above holds true whatever school you happen to be in. > But for as long as North believes that the partnership methods are than 2NT > is natural, he must alert any of South's bids that are alertable in that > context. Since North is not allowed to infer anything from South's alert of > 2NT, he must alert 3H, which is what he would do if he were deaf, or playing > behind a screen. > OK with the screen, but in that case the alert is not UI, and even with the deaf North, because he would not have the knowledge of the misunderstanding, so his transmission of UI is inadvertent. > The Laws presume that South does not hear North's alerts and explanations, > and vice versa. This is of course a legal fiction, but it is a useful one, > and for the sake of simplicity we may extend it so that questions asked of > North and answers given by North do not legally constitute any indication to > South. In that way, no one need break any Laws, and the dWS can safely be > towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire. > It is precisely because L16 is only a legal fiction that L75D2 (and L73B1) are created that additionally forbid the sending of UI, not just the receiving of it. You can tow things out to sea and sink them all you like, you cannot just scrap the two laws you want out of the lawbook. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 14 11:14:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <3E7D3ED0-A10B-49D6-9032-EF0FCF93B481@starpower.net> References: <2b1e598b0710111747g1c501f77ob6a1d27d1b434999@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0710112051p17ddd6d4na0ef7c4322253af4@mail.gmail.com> <3E7D3ED0-A10B-49D6-9032-EF0FCF93B481@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4711DE0C.6080202@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It is the dWS user, not his partner, who uses UI; his actions are > perforce based on the unauthorized knowledge that his partner has not > bid in conformity with the actual partnership agreement. The MS > requires its "user" to take the same action he would have if he > lacked that knowledge. > > In that, the individual who believes this to be a valid argument, is gravely mistaken, as I pointed out several times already. L16 forbids the use of UI when selecting calls or plays, but L16 is silent about other actions. Please do not use this argument in future. It has been refuted. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 14 11:16:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:16:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004201c80d1e$d8195d20$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <004201c80d1e$d8195d20$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner. And if that is the best you can do, I don't want to bother any more. Of course an answer to an opponent is a communication to partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 14 11:47:09 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:47:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L72C - Redouble? Message-ID: <000301c80e47$30741540$6400a8c0@WINXP> Is it an oversight or the intention when redouble is not listed in L27C together with double and pass as a call that can replace an insufficient bid and the auction then continues normally (if the redouble incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid)? If redouble is not permitted as a replacement call then Law 27D2 ought to have been written: "If the insufficient bid is replaced by a double, except as 27C1 allows, or a redouble the double or redouble must be .....". The wording of L27D2 is my main reason for suspecting that we are facing an oversight in L27C? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 14 12:07:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:07:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner. > > And if that is the best you can do, I don't want to bother any more. > Of course an answer to an opponent is a communication to partner. No Herman, it is not a communication to partner, no more than if you are talking with someone at a party and a third person listens to what you say. You are not "communicating" to this third person, he is just listening in. And if he breaks into your conversation then it is quite proper (although often a bit rude) to say to him: "I was not talking to you"! Similarly when you are answering an opponent's question you are only communicating with that opponent and your partner is not supposed to "listen in" on that conversation. Whatever your partner hears is unauthorized information to him. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 12:47:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:47:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun" (reprise): >You too may be a big hero, >Once you've learned to count backwards to zero, LAW 77 - DUPLICATE BRIDGE SCORING TABLE [Unchanged portion of Law 77 snipped] If all four players pass (see Law 22) each side enters a zero score. Richard Hills: This update of Law 77 was thanks to a suggestion by gafiated blmler David Stevenson. David noted that because the Duplicate Bridge Law 77 had been - way back when - originally copied from the Contract Bridge ("Rubber Bridge") Lawbook, Law 77 therefore did not mention the score for a passed-in board. Also, for the benefit of novice Directors, this explanatory note has been added to the Index: Note: A "Zero score" is _not_ identical to an "Average score". Richard Hills: Newbie blmlers may not be aware that David Stevenson's website contains many instructive features. My immodest personal favourite one of David's webpages is: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm since not only can David's official EBU and WBU appeals casebooks be downloaded, but also two unofficial casebooks I edited a few years ago can be downloaded. I am joining David Stevenson in gafiating from blml, to recharge my batteries. However, unlike David's unnecessarily extended gafiation (come back soon David - can you be tempted now a less ambiguous Lawbook has been published?), I will be absent for only a week, intending to return to this thread on Monday 22nd October 2007. 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 Mon Oct 15 05:49:57 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:49:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014140459.0c1ac1a8@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014204753.01bd7bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:11 PM 13/10/2007, you wrote: >Surely it doesn't mean 1C (1S) 1H, oops double?? > >perhaps double could be said to "incorporate" a >4 card heart suit?? > >Tony (Sydney) > >* * * > >Hi, Tony (Sydney) > >Your email arrived just seconds after I had sent an >email expressing an identical thought. > >"Great minds think alike." >"Fools never differ." Aargh, I told you not to tell me that! I arrive at the table and can offer the offender either a change to double if a negative double shows 4 hearts by system, or, I can suggest that they can make the bid good (and perhaps show 5 hearts). This not good is Regards, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Oct 15 05:58:11 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:58:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014205534.0c1ad848@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 10:22 PM 13/10/2007, you wrote: >"Tony Musgrove" writes: > > >I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in > > the new L27C(1) of changing an attempted > > insufficient bid, with a double or pass which > > "incorporates the information contained in the > > insufficient bid". Could anyone give an example > > of what this means? David Grabiner: >West bids 4NT, Blackwood. >North bids 5H. >East bids 5D, one ace, then corrects it to pass, which shows one ace under >DOPI. I can understand these DOPI, PODI cases. I play DEPO, so double would show an even number of key cards, but by insufficient bid may have show zero. That meaning would still be contained in the double, but my alteration to double means a little extra.. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >South opens 1S. >West bids 2H. >North bids 3H. >East bids 3H, then corrects to double, showing a raise to 3H. > >The Law also deals with another common situation of conventional insufficient >bids, a 2C Stayman response to 2NT. Responder can now correct that to 3C >without rectification (I prefer the old word "penalty".) > >In all three of these cases, there is little new information given by the >correction. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 14 14:53:01 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:53:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner. > > > > And if that is the best you can do, I don't want to bother any more. > > Of course an answer to an opponent is a communication to partner. > > No Herman, it is not a communication to partner, no more than if you are > talking with someone at a party and a third person listens to what you say. > > You are not "communicating" to this third person, he is just listening in. > > And if he breaks into your conversation then it is quite proper (although > often a bit rude) to say to him: "I was not talking to you"! > > Similarly when you are answering an opponent's question you are only > communicating with that opponent and your partner is not supposed to "listen > in" on that conversation. Whatever your partner hears is unauthorized > information to him. > If Hirsch and Sven are correct, then in response to "please explain," you can say, "I'm not really sure, but I am going to bid my best suit and see what happens." Don't you see that this is too much communication with partner? It seems clear to me that how you explain your methods are affected by whether or not you use screens, precisely because you are simultaneously communicating with partner when answering questions about your methods. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Oct 14 15:50:54 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:50:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> [HD] An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner. [HdW] And if that is the best you can do, I don't want to bother any more. Of course an answer to an opponent is a communication to partner. [SP] No Herman, it is not a communication to partner, no more than if you are talking with someone at a party and a third person listens to what you say. You are not "communicating" to this third person, he is just listening in. And if he breaks into your conversation then it is quite proper (although often a bit rude) to say to him: "I was not talking to you"! Similarly when you are answering an opponent's question you are only communicating with that opponent and your partner is not supposed to "listen in" on that conversation. Whatever your partner hears is unauthorized information to him. [JF] If Hirsch and Sven are correct [DALB] They are. There is no "if" about it. [JF] then in response to "please explain," you can say, "I'm not really sure, but I am going to bid my best suit and see what happens." [DALB] Why? Your methods are not "bid your best suit and see what happens". If asked to explain, your duty is to explain. [JF] Don't you see that this is too much communication with partner? [DALB] No. Once again, partner is assumed not to listen when you are giving an explanation to the opponents. You cannot communicate with someone who does not receive the information you transmit. That is why Law 73B1 is irrelevant. It does not say "you must not alert or explain"; what it says in effect is "partner must not see or hear when you do alert or explain". Law 73C tells a player what to do when he has broken Law 73B1. [JF] It seems clear to me that how you explain your methods are affected by whether or not you use screens, precisely because you are simultaneously communicating with partner when answering questions about your methods. [DALB] And it seems clear to Sven, Hirsch, me, and most of the rest of the world that the explanations you give to your opponents should be exactly the same with screens as without. You should not concern yourself with partner - since he is supposed to act as though he had not heard your explanation, you are free to act as though he cannot hear it. You see, you are not communicating with partner. Judging by the tone of Herman's latest missives, no one is going to be able to convince him of the nature of his error, since it is a fundamental one. But at least I now understand the wrong thought that lies behind the dWS. David Burn London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 14 19:48:23 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:48:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws Message-ID: <47125667.9000701@nhcc.net> [After partner gives MI...] From: "David Grabiner" > More of a problem is that L20F5 has not been corrected to agree with the new > L75; calling the Director is still a "must" here Yes, I overlooked this one the first time around. The correction is still mandatory, and for the defending side only, so is calling the Director. Odd that there are two different Laws for this situation with different requirements, but the substantive obligation has not changed. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 14 19:58:20 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:58:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws Message-ID: <471258BC.6070600@nhcc.net> Apparently from Henk Uijterwaal, though I didn't see the original. >Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American >territory? I.e. the game will be in the US, thus >ACBL land. I don't think so in general, though they could be in some cases by specific treaty. (Ed: do you know for sure one way or the other?) Embassies, in contrast, are considered territory of the nation they are representing rather than the host nation. Even if embassies and some or all military bases are special cases, it doesn't help clubs that meet in ordinary civilian venues but wish to play under another NBO's rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 14 22:09:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:09:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47125667.9000701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 2007 Law Number Zero: [snip] Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not". [snip] David Grabiner: [snip] >And L9B1 has also been corrected, so that the general obligation to >call the Director is downgraded to "should" (otherwise, it would >override L75, since attention has been drawn to an irregularity): > > The Director should be summoned at once when > attention is drawn to an irregularity. [snip] >More of a problem is that L20F5 has not been corrected to agree >with the new L75; calling the Director is still a "must" here [snip] Richard Hills: This is not an inconsistency; the 1997 Law 9B1(a) "must" has been changed to the 2007 Law 9B1(a) "should" for reasons which have nothing to do with the 2007 Law 75. David Grabiner (and Steve Willner) have forgotten Laws 9A1 and 9A2: 1. **Unless prohibited by Law**, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call. 2. **Unless prohibited by Law**, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3. Richard Hills: And Law 75 **prohibits by law** a premature drawing of attention to a specific type of irregularity. While it is true that the general obligation to summon the Director after an irregularity has been downgraded to "should", it is entirely possible (and perhaps desirable) that for a specific infraction there is a specific over-riding obligation of "must". Admittedly some "but see" cross-references from the "should" Law 9B1(a) to such specific "must" Laws would be desirable. However -> 2007 Law Number Zero: [snip] Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. [snip] Richard Hills: But David Grabiner does have one valid point. The "musts" appearing in the 1997 Law 75D were inconsistent with the "should" appearing in the 1997 Law 75 footnote. Unfortunately this inconsistency was carried forward when the 1997 Law 75D was transmogrified into the 2007 Law 20F5, and that part of the 1997 Law 75 footnote was transmogrified into the 2007 Law 75B. 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 Oct 14 23:18:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:18:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Harold Wilson (1916-1995): "A week is a long time in politics." Richard Hills: Warning! This post is also going to be long, so some blmlers may wish to delete this before reading. LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. B. Mistaken Explanation The actual partnership agreement is that 2D is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North's explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends. C. Mistaken Call The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. 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. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently. Richard Hills: Those blmlers who oppose the De Wael School may be briefly cheered up by the 2007 Law 75B stating: "East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement" and by Herman De Wael's favourite Law, the 1997 Law 75D2, apparently deleted. Alas, Herman still has a leg to stand on. Those sections of Law 75 (and Law 72) which have apparently been deleted have actually merely been moved. Laws 72 and 75 movements: 1997 Law 72A2 -> 2007 Law 79A2 1997 Law 72A3 -> 2007 Law 10A 1997 Law 72A4 -> 2007 Law 10C3 1997 Law 72A5 -> 2007 Law 10C4 1997 Law 72A6 -> 2007 Law 81C preamble 1997 Law 72B1 -> 2007 Law 23 1997 Law 75A -> 2007 Law 40A1(b), 40A2 1997 Law 75B -> 2007 Law 40A1(a), 40B1(b), 40C1, 40C2 1997 Law 75C -> 2007 Law 40B6(a) 1997 Law 75D1 -> 2007 Law 20F4 1997 Law 75D2 -> 2007 Law 20F5(a), 20F5(b) And now for the real reason that some blmlers may wish to delete this post before reading on. Steve Willner courteously sent me an advance copy of a critical posting that he is about to send, and further courteously offered to incorporate a considered response from me in his posting. Steve Willner is about to post: This is a difficult and unpleasant message for me to write, but as one of the co-founders of BLML, I think it's my responsibility to say something. BLML exists to discuss bridge laws and interpretations. Because of our varied backgrounds and experiences, it is not surprising that we will disagree, sometimes even sharply. Such disagreements are no excuse for personal attacks on other posters. The "de Wael School" (dWS) has been a controversial topic on this list. Richard Hills has written numerous messages that show his failure to understand it and misquote what Herman has written. Those would be merely amusing, but more recently Mr. Hills has written unprovoked and persistent attacks on Herman personally. In a bridge context, this reminds me of a player who commits a horrible blunder, then tries to blame partner or an opponent. In my professional context, it reminds me of the "moon hoaxers" and "hollow earthers," who often resort to personal invective when their "arguments" are shown to be invalid. I won't speculate on Mr. Hills' actual motives, but such attacks should have no place on BLML. I suggest all of us refuse to respond to any message by Mr. Hills on the subject of the dWS or Herman himself. * * * Steve Willner's posting is about to include this considered response from Richard Hills: I suggest that you post the above message together with this appended reply as the one posting. I have never intended to attack Herman De Wael personally. When I used a word - "incompetent" - which could have been interpreted as a personal attack, I promptly retracted that word (substituting "incorrect" instead) and promptly publicly apologised to Herman De Wael. The new Lawbook clearly invalidates a tenet of the De Wael School, his proposition that a Director should never rule that "Undiscussed" is true thus therefore players might as well lie (with a guess) when asked about partnership understandings when "Undiscussed" is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. * * * Richard Hills is about to quote Grattan Endicott, (13th June 2007): +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ * * * Richard Hills (not part of my original considered response, so not previously sent to Steve Willner): In formal debating competitions there is an informal Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not compare a person or an action to Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. If thou infracts this Commandment, thy team's score shalt be adjusted to zero." In like spirit I propose that blml adopt a similar informal Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not compare the great-hearted Herman De Wael to Sauron the Great. If thou infracts this Commandment, sensible blmlers shalt automatically delete thy postings without reading such." My sincere apologies for gratuitously comparing Herman De Wael to such an embodiment of evil. The fact that that post incorporated smileys was no excuse, because that post failed to discuss in any way the real question that Herman and myself have been trying to resolve: "What is a reasonable interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook in general, and the 1997 Law 75D2 in particular?" 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 Oct 15 00:12:26 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:12:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4712944A.60007@ntlworld.com> [Steve Willner] This is a difficult and unpleasant message for me to write, but as one of the co-founders of BLML, I think it's my responsibility to say something. BLML exists to discuss bridge laws and interpretations. Because of our varied backgrounds and experiences, it is not surprising that we will disagree, sometimes even sharply. Such disagreements are no excuse for personal attacks on other posters. The "de Wael School" (dWS) has been a controversial topic on this list. Richard Hills has written numerous messages that show his failure to understand it and misquote what Herman has written. Those would be merely amusing, but more recently Mr. Hills has written unprovoked and persistent attacks on Herman personally. In a bridge context, this reminds me of a player who commits a horrible blunder, then tries to blame partner or an opponent. In my professional context, it reminds me of the "moon hoaxers" and "hollow earthers," who often resort to personal invective when their "arguments" are shown to be invalid. I won't speculate on Mr. Hills' actual motives, but such attacks should have no place on BLML. I suggest all of us refuse to respond to any message by Mr. Hills on the subject of the dWS or Herman himself. [Grattan Endicott, 13th June 2007] +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ [Richard Hills] I have never intended to attack Herman De Wael personally. When I used a word - "incompetent" - which could have been interpreted as a personal attack, I promptly retracted that word (substituting "incorrect" instead) and promptly publicly apologised to Herman De Wael. [nige1] I agree with Steve that Richard sometimes goes a bit over the top in criticising views that conflict with his; but he rushes to apologise afterwards. Grattan, Kojak, Maddog and Tim West Meads, too, sometimes resort to personal invective (without apology). I feel, however, that such insolence may be a failed attempt at humour. Although it is to be deplored, we should not become incensed about it. Herman might even agree that he would rather be criticised than ignored. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 03:32:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:32:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] And it seems clear to Sven, Hirsch, me, and most of the rest of the world that the explanations you give to your opponents should be exactly the same with screens as without. [JF] Really? That's delightfully black and white. With screens I might say, "puppets 3C, and he is showing X, Y, or Z." Without screens, I might say, "Shows X, Y, or Z." But you say this different wording is wrong. Which of these should I say every time---and why? After all, most agreements include agreements about future bids, and maybe some of these agreements are useful for the opponents to learn about right away. But more fundamentally, it is easy to explain your system when you are certain. But, and pardon me David if I missed you explaining this elsewhere, what would you have me say if I am only 90% sure what our agreements are? Or 50%? And I take it that your answer would vary not in the least by what your partner might have said earlier in this hand. And I also take it that you do listen to your partner's explanations carefully in order to correct errors at the earliest proper time. I remember one case with a new partner where we had no specific agreement, but since we had agreed to play maximal overcall doubles, I said I was almost sure that his 3H over their 3D was a game try, because we had agreed on spades. My super-experienced RHO did not like my explanation one bit, saying that my reasoning was worthless, that that is a totally different sequence, and I should just have said either what the agreement was, or said no agreement. (I don't think the opps should engage in that kind of debate in general, but I did share my reasoning for my inference, so maybe I opened the door in some way.) What do you think I should have explained in that case? (It was a game try---"of course---what else could it be?" my partner said.) When it is totally clear what the agreement is, it is easy to state it. But the situation I was thinking of in this thread was not that situation. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 09:43:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:43:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [DALB] > > And it seems clear to Sven, Hirsch, me, and most of the rest of the world > that the explanations you give to your opponents should be exactly the same > with screens as without. > Jerry has been coming to the defence of the dWS wonderfully well, but I want to add my own comments as well. The question seems to be whether the answer to a question by opponents is an active communication to partner, which is an infraction according to L73B1, or simply a communication to opponents, of which partner is to remain deaf. If you do not thing this is important, let me remind you that we are trying to determine whether the actions of both schools are acceptable, and in order to do so I was saying that both actions are illegal. Daved et al are trying to convince us that the actions of a MS adherent are not contrary to L73B1, since they do not constitute a transmission of UI to partner. Let's read L73B1 then again: (restructuring and numbering mine) Partners shall not communicate (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures (3) through questions asked or not asked (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) and (4) clearly refer to communications to opponents. It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the things it forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining things to opponents. I feel that David's argument lacks value therefore. And anyway, it is hardly important. My aim was to prove that the MS methods are illegal. I was challenged to provide law numbers, and I gave 2 of them. David attacks one of those, and I think I have rebutted that attack. David has not yet commented on L75D2, and I believe that anyone who thinks that the MS actions do not break L75D2 is highly delusional and only wants to see those things that support the outcome they wish for. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 09:52:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:52:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47131C54.10408@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL > > After a misleading explanation has been given to > opponents the responsibilities of the players (and > the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences > of this following example: > > North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand > with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign > off; North explains, however, in answer to West's > inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, > asking for major suits. > > A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information > > Whether or not North's explanation is a correct > statement of partnership agreement, South, having > heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid > has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is > "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South > must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from > that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he > does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For > instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the > unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a > four-card holding in either major suit; but South's > responsibility is to act as though North had made a > strong game try opposite a weak response, showing > maximum values. > > B. Mistaken Explanation > > The actual partnership agreement is that 2D is a > natural signoff; the mistake was in North's > explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, > since East-West are entitled to an accurate > description of the North-South agreement (when this > infraction results in damage to East-West, the > Director shall award an adjusted score). If North > subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must > immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing > to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction > continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be > declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must > volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South > becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects > the explanation when play ends. > I note that this leaves out the "in any manner" which appeared in the 1997 L75D2 (a point often used in my arguments) but that it now includes "while the auction continues". This was not present before, and it led some to argue that the ban on correcting only existed immediately after the mistaken explanation, and not later on. That was not true, of course, but the argument can hardly resurface under the 2007 laws. > C. Mistaken Call > > The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D is > strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's > call. 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. (Regardless of > damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; > but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, > rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence > to the contrary.) South must not correct North's > explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and > he has no responsibility to do so subsequently. > [I have left in the new law for easy referral] > Richard Hills: > > Those blmlers who oppose the De Wael School may be > briefly cheered up by the 2007 Law 75B stating: > > "East-West are entitled to an accurate description of > the North-South agreement" > Which was also present in the 1997 laws, and something I never contested. > and by Herman De Wael's favourite Law, the 1997 Law > 75D2, apparently deleted. > But retained under other numbers, as you do indeed say below. > Alas, Herman still has a leg to stand on. Those > sections of Law 75 (and Law 72) which have apparently > been deleted have actually merely been moved. > > Laws 72 and 75 movements: > > 1997 Law 72A2 -> 2007 Law 79A2 > 1997 Law 72A3 -> 2007 Law 10A > 1997 Law 72A4 -> 2007 Law 10C3 > 1997 Law 72A5 -> 2007 Law 10C4 > 1997 Law 72A6 -> 2007 Law 81C preamble > 1997 Law 72B1 -> 2007 Law 23 > 1997 Law 75A -> 2007 Law 40A1(b), 40A2 > 1997 Law 75B -> 2007 Law 40A1(a), 40B1(b), 40C1, 40C2 > 1997 Law 75C -> 2007 Law 40B6(a) > 1997 Law 75D1 -> 2007 Law 20F4 > 1997 Law 75D2 -> 2007 Law 20F5(a), 20F5(b) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 15 11:26:52 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:26:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> <47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c80f0d$8662c2f0$932848d0$@com> [HdW] Let's read L73B1 then again: (restructuring and numbering mine) Partners shall not communicate (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures (3) through questions asked or not asked (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) and (4) clearly refer to communications to opponents. It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the things it forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining things to opponents. [DALB] Exactly right, Herman. Law 73B1 does indeed forbid the passing of information to partner by explaining things to opponents. That is why, in the remainder of Law 73 and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear that partner (for legal purposes) does not receive the information contained in an explanation to opponents, and one gives explanations on that basis. Of course, in reality partner is sitting at the table and can hear you speak. But as Sven says, if I am sitting at the next table to you in a restaurant and can hear what you order from the waiter, you are nevertheless not communicating to me, but to the waiter. I can understand your difficulty, because you appear to regard the information contained in a response to an opponent's question (or an order placed with the waiter) as information communicated to whoever happens to be in earshot. You should do your best to cease to so regard it, because the Laws do not support (and in fact expressly proscribe) this interpretation. If it were the case that an explanation to opponents was in fact a communication to partner, it would be illegal under your interpretation of Law 73 to explain your methods at all. Surely even you can see that this is absurd. [HdW] And anyway, it is hardly important. [DALB] On the contrary, it is the crux of the matter. An explanation to an opponent is not a communication to partner. It might help if you read Law 73C thus: When partner has failed in his duty to shut his eyes and cover his ears while you have been alerting and explaining your methods to the opponents, he must not act on what he has seen and heard. [HdW] My aim was to prove that the MS methods are illegal. I was challenged to provide law numbers, and I gave 2 of them. David attacks one of those, and I think I have rebutted that attack. [DALB] You think many things, Herman. Most of them are true, but this is not. The legal position is simply this: you must explain your methods to the opponents, and partner must not be aware (or, what is the same thing, act as if he is aware) of anything contained in your explanation. That is what the MS says, and that is entirely consistent with the Laws as written. [HdW] David has not yet commented on L75D2 [DALB] This is another one of the things you think that are not true. I have said elsewhere that L75D2 is irrelevant, because an explanation to opponents is not "an indication in any manner that a mistake has been made" unless the opponents receive two explanations that are in conflict (as where North explains 4NT as minors and South explains the 5D response as one ace). But, like L73C, this Law applies only when a player has failed in his duty not to take any notice of his partner's explanations; moreover, it applies only in circumstances where one player is certain that the methods are not as partner has explained them (note that this is different from partner not having understood a call as the player intended it). Since this almost never happens, L75D2 almost never applies to anyone, for which reason it is a good thing that it has been removed from the 2007 Laws. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 15 11:39:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:39:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > Partners shall not communicate > (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made > (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures > (3) through questions asked or not asked > (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) > [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to > change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] > > While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) > and (4) clearly refer to communications to opponents. > > It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the > things it forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining > things to opponents. You still do not know the difference between communication and eavesdropping do you? Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Oct 15 13:06:47 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:06:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> > [HdW] > > Let's read L73B1 then again: (restructuring and numbering mine) > > Partners shall not communicate > (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made > (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures > (3) through questions asked or not asked > (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) > [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to > change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] > > While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) and > (4) > clearly refer to communications to opponents. > > It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the things > it > forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining things to > opponents. > > [DALB] > > Exactly right, Herman. Law 73B1 does indeed forbid the passing of > information to partner by explaining things to opponents. That is why, in > the remainder of Law 73 and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear that > partner > (for legal purposes) does not receive the information contained in an > explanation to opponents, and one gives explanations on that basis. > > Of course, in reality partner is sitting at the table and can hear you > speak. But as Sven says, if I am sitting at the next table to you in a > restaurant and can hear what you order from the waiter, you are > nevertheless > not communicating to me, but to the waiter. David - in Poland we are in the middle of the campaign before the elections so I'm hearing convoluted statements like that every day but you were the last person I expected to use that kind of "That depends on your definition of the word 'is'." reasoning. If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not "communicating through alerts" than what is? If are giving your opponents an explanation that you know is going to wake up partner that you are breaking L73B1. If a) your partner is unaware of the system mishap b) you say something at the table - something you can be 100% certain he will hear (this is why an analogy with the waiter is false) c) your partner becomes aware that their you're having a bidding misunderstanding then you have just communicated to partner that the wheels have come off. How can you not call that communication - "a process by which information is exchanged between individuals" according to the English dictionary? If it continues in the same vein that I'll start arguing that by following de Wael's school I'm not breaking L40C at all. by redefining the notion of "the full meaning of a call or play". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rusz pupe na wybory! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 13:23:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:23:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47134D97.1070301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >> Partners shall not communicate >> (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made >> (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures >> (3) through questions asked or not asked >> (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) >> [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to >> change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] >> >> While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) >> and (4) clearly refer to communications to opponents. >> >> It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the >> things it forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining >> things to opponents. > > You still do not know the difference between communication and eavesdropping > do you? > Look Sven, I gave a reasoned reply. If L73B1 includes communication through questions asked, then surely it includes "communication directed at opponents but received by partner". If you consider "what does 3 HEARTS mean?" as communication directed at partner then "diamond preference (partner, did you hear, not Blackwood!) is surely the same thing. But all this is meaningless anyway, since you still have the infraction of L75D2 to contend with. The actions of the MS are illegal. And acceptable. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 13:31:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:31:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c80f0d$8662c2f0$932848d0$@com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> <47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> <000001c80f0d$8662c2f0$932848d0$@com> Message-ID: <47134F90.5050003@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > [DALB] > > Exactly right, Herman. Law 73B1 does indeed forbid the passing of > information to partner by explaining things to opponents. That is why, in > the remainder of Law 73 and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear that partner > (for legal purposes) does not receive the information contained in an > explanation to opponents, and one gives explanations on that basis. > > Of course, in reality partner is sitting at the table and can hear you > speak. But as Sven says, if I am sitting at the next table to you in a > restaurant and can hear what you order from the waiter, you are nevertheless > not communicating to me, but to the waiter. I can understand your > difficulty, because you appear to regard the information contained in a > response to an opponent's question (or an order placed with the waiter) as > information communicated to whoever happens to be in earshot. You should do > your best to cease to so regard it, because the Laws do not support (and in > fact expressly proscribe) this interpretation. If it were the case that an > explanation to opponents was in fact a communication to partner, it would be > illegal under your interpretation of Law 73 to explain your methods at all. > Surely even you can see that this is absurd. > No David, that is not absurd, because until we have heard him misexplain, we are under the legal impression that whatever we tell opponents will not be unknown to him, and will be treated by the TD as AI, even though technically it is UI. Thus, while we are indeed communicating something to partner, it is something that we suppose he knows. But if we know that he does not know (or is mistaken in) something, to then communicate that fact to opponents is at the same time a communication to partner, and that is forbidden by L73B1. > [HdW] > > And anyway, it is hardly important. > > [DALB] > > On the contrary, it is the crux of the matter. An explanation to an opponent > is not a communication to partner. It might help if you read Law 73C thus: > > When partner has failed in his duty to shut his eyes and cover his ears > while you have been alerting and explaining your methods to the opponents, > he must not act on what he has seen and heard. > > [HdW] > > My aim was to prove that the MS methods are illegal. I was challenged to > provide law numbers, and I gave 2 of them. David attacks one of those, and I > think I have rebutted that attack. > > [DALB] > > You think many things, Herman. Most of them are true, but this is not. The > legal position is simply this: you must explain your methods to the > opponents, and partner must not be aware (or, what is the same thing, act as > if he is aware) of anything contained in your explanation. That is what the > MS says, and that is entirely consistent with the Laws as written. > David, you do not need to keep reminding us of things that I have many times countered with arguments, one of which you fail to respond to. The actions of the MS are in direct breach of L75D2. As such, they are illegal, whatever you might think about the breach of L73B1. Unless you also contest that L75D2 is not broken (and I really don't see how you can do that with any sense of logic), your conclusion is simply wrong. Since both actions are in one way or another illegal, both actions must be considered acceptable. > [HdW] > > David has not yet commented on L75D2 > > [DALB] > > This is another one of the things you think that are not true. I have said > elsewhere that L75D2 is irrelevant, because an explanation to opponents is > not "an indication in any manner that a mistake has been made" unless the > opponents receive two explanations that are in conflict (as where North > explains 4NT as minors and South explains the 5D response as one ace). Which is exactly the case here. > But, > like L73C, this Law applies only when a player has failed in his duty not to > take any notice of his partner's explanations; moreover, it applies only in > circumstances where one player is certain that the methods are not as > partner has explained them (note that this is different from partner not > having understood a call as the player intended it). Since this almost never > happens, L75D2 almost never applies to anyone, for which reason it is a good > thing that it has been removed from the 2007 Laws. > And why do you think it only applies. Because that is what David says? Because the MS depends on it, and everyone knows the MS is right? And sorry to start a discussion that will rage for another 10 years, but it has not been removed from the 2007 laws. There too, it says "while the auction continues". If you wish to say that "diamond preference" is not an indication that 4NT was not Blackwood, then please go spout that silly notion elsewhere. The intention might be different, but the result is exactly the same. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 15 14:01:27 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> [KC] If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not "communicating through alerts" than what is? [DALB] Alerting a bid that partner does expect me to alert is, by this token, also communicating through alerts - "it's all right, partner - I've remembered the system". Do you suggest that this is illegal? [KC] If are giving your opponents an explanation that you know is going to wake up partner that you are breaking L73B1. [DALB] There are (at least) two ways in which we may prevent communication from A to B. Either: [1] we prevent A from saying anything; or [2] we prevent B from hearing what A says. Now, since A is required to say something when asked for an explanation of his methods, we cannot follow [1]. Therefore we must if possible follow [2]. That is one of the reasons why we use screens in certain competitions, and why we prevent alerts and explanations from being seen by partner in online bridge. In most cases, however, we cannot physically prevent B from hearing what A says - screens are not used in bridge clubs, and it is impractical because of time considerations and general convenience to send B away from the table every time A gives an explanation. Therefore we construct a legal framework in which B has a duty not to act on an awareness of what A says, since the effect of this is the same as if B had not heard it. If, therefore, I give an explanation to an opponent, I do not "know that it is going to wake up partner", for I know that partner will act as if he had not been woken up. If he fails to do so, of course, he is in breach of the Laws, but I do not know in advance that partner is going to break the Laws. [KC] If a) your partner is unaware of the system mishap b) you say something at the table - something you can be 100% certain he will hear (this is why an analogy with the waiter is false) c) your partner becomes aware that you're having a bidding misunderstanding then you have just communicated to partner that the wheels have come off. [DALB] So what? Since partner will not act as though the wheels have come off, the effect is the same as if I had not communicated anything to him at all. David Burn London, England From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 15 14:03:37 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:03:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47134D97.1070301@skynet.be> References: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> <47134D97.1070301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071015080337.171ac3f0@linuxbox> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:23:03 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > If L73B1 includes communication through questions asked, then surely > it includes "communication directed at opponents but received by > partner". > I've always believed that "communication through questions asked" was meant to outlaw things like the "defence" to an opening weak 1NT where pass = 0-10 ask opp to confirm range and then pass = 11-14 double = 15+ *That's* communicating with partner through questions asked! (And yes, Herman, I've picked the clearest example that comes to mind again. No doubt you'll want me to "get real", like last time.) Brian. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071015/c1add2c8/attachment.pgp From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 15 14:41:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:41:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071015080337.171ac3f0@linuxbox> Message-ID: <001001c80f28$b1a83b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian ............ > I've always believed that "communication through questions asked" was > meant to outlaw things like the "defence" to an opening weak 1NT where > > pass = 0-10 > ask opp to confirm range and then pass = 11-14 > double = 15+ > > *That's* communicating with partner through questions asked! > > (And yes, Herman, I've picked the clearest example that comes to mind > again. No doubt you'll want me to "get real", like last time.) A very nice example Brian, and correct too! Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 15 14:41:32 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:41:32 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/10/2007 12:23:07 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: >> Partners shall not communicate >> (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given On HdW's interpretation, the person will just sit there if he suspects a wheel has come off. In practice he answers the question even if the answer shows that a wheel has come off. There is no conflict here, each player can "effectively" prevent the "communication" as David Burn clearly explains, by pretending to be deaf but not dumb. I recall my partner bidding 5D to which I replied 5NT in a slam auction; when asked I explained 5D as "please cue kings" and my partner explained 5NT as "no, but extra length". Everyone had a laugh. We all knew immediately what had happened, as 5C would have been the enquiry "have you got the queen of trumps?". My partner continued to pretend he had not misbid with 5D and therefore treated 5NT as "no kings, but still interested" which is what it would have been if he had correctly bid 5C. So there is no problem as long as a player is deaf but not dumb. In fact, why not issue all players with earplugs which they are only allowed to remove when asking questions about opponent's bids or when dummy? These are the only times they need their ears - they never listen to director announcements. From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 15 14:50:33 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:50:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4712944A.60007@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007501c80f29$f971ce00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan, Kojak, Maddog and Tim West Meads, too, sometimes resort to > personal invective (without apology). I admit to using peronal invective. It is not personally directed; and please take this as a standing apology if personal offence is caused. I write robustly and don't apologise for that. In particular Nigel can be the butt of some of my more extreme efforts, but it's my writing style rather than a slanderous intent. Please keep this email for your records if you're likely to be personally invected by me. cheers John > > I feel, however, that such insolence may be a failed attempt at > humour. Although it is to be deplored, we should not become incensed > about it. > sounds about right to me. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Oct 15 14:59:17 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:59:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not "communicating through alerts" than what is? If are giving your opponents an explanation that you know is going to wake up partner that you are breaking L73B1. If a) your partner is unaware of the system mishap b) you say something at the table - something you can be 100% certain he will hear (this is why an analogy with the waiter is false) c) your partner becomes aware that their you're having a bidding misunderstanding then you have just communicated to partner that the wheels have come off. How can you not call that communication - "a process by which information is exchanged between individuals" according to the English dictionary? ******************************************* HD: No one has said that partner may not know that the wheels have come off through hearing an explanation to the opponents. However, said partner is also aware of his duties under L73C. That is, although he has heard a communication to the opponents, he may not take advantage of it. "73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, ***explanation***, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " (emphasis is mine). The Laws do consider that partner may hear an explanation to the opponents, and do tell him how to handle it. But that's partner's responsibility. It's not yours to provide false information to the opponents, to avoid waking partner up. That puts you in violation of L20F, L40 and sections of L75. Herman's intepretation assumes that partner is an unlawful and unethical player who will not follow the constraints of 73C, so that the only option to prevent an advantage from accruing to his side is to violate disclosure to the opponents. Rather than violate Law to handle such a player, I do suggest not playing with them. HdW: No David, that is not absurd, because until we have heard him misexplain, we are under the legal impression that whatever we tell opponents will not be unknown to him, and will be treated by the TD as AI, even though technically it is UI. Thus, while we are indeed communicating something to partner, it is something that we suppose he knows. But if we know that he does not know (or is mistaken in) something, to then communicate that fact to opponents is at the same time a communication to partner, and that is forbidden by L73B1. HD: Herman's interpretation also assumes that you know when partner will be awakened by your explanation. The MI situation is simply a special case where you are sure that the wheels have come off. However, all explanations to the opponents are UI, and many will wake up partner even if the opponents have not asked him a question that allows you to know that the wheels are off. If so, how do you know when not to disclose? You don't, but it doesn't matter. Whether MI is present or not, it's all UI. Redundant AI is completely irrelevant, except insofar as it limits the logical alternatives under L16. If you cannot provide UI to partner, you cannot explain your methods to the opponents if partner can hear. Ever. It's all UI. This is the real dWs, and it's completely silly. If you follow the dWs logic to its endpoint, explaining your methods to the opponents is not legal because it provides UI to partner. I don't know what game that is, but it's not bridge. When making explanations to opponents, we are not under any legal impression (technical or otherwise) that what we say will be known to partner and is technically AI, because there is no provision anywhere in Law for an explanation to the opponents to become AI. It's not, as L73C makes perfectly clear. We are under the assumption that partner will obey L73C (and L16A1). Accordingly, we tell the truth to the opponents, as required by the Laws cited above, and let partner handle the 73C implications. Hirsch Davis From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 15 15:15:30 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:15:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu> <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00ae01c80f2d$760fc8b0$0701a8c0@john> > exact definition is largely irrelevant in that context. > > 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial > games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. Further, the Laws > purport to impose NBO regulation on all games within the boundaries of > that NBO, even independent clubs not affiliated in any way with the NBO. > (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their > games.) MM. If i run an individual at home am I bound by the NBO? Hardly. If i run it in a club and my group is not affiliated am i bound? hardly. The legal requirements on restraint of trade would cause me entertainment for months (speaking as one who has screwed up 5000 quids worth of currency and delivered it in a bin bag - it's legal tender the court eventually decided, and I cost the other side thousands of quid, which was my full cynical intent while they fought it. I never did get my original ten pound application back, but it was a good investment - I was never troubled by them again). So If I have a group which is not affiliated, am I bound to affiliate to the home NBO if I choose an affiliation? MM, I doubt it. Can another NBO accept such an affiliation? Probably; I just have to trade from a PO Box in that jurisdiction. Where I geographically hold my games is no concern of any Bridge law. I'm probably talking through my hat as usual. John > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Oct 15 15:37:11 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 15 Oct 2007 15:37:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20071015133711.B2E70678759@f51.poczta.interia.pl> > [KC] > > If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not > "communicating > through alerts" than what is? > > [DALB] > > Alerting a bid that partner does expect me to alert is, by this token, > also > communicating through alerts - "it's all right, partner - I've remembered > the system". Exactly - this is why we use screens whenever possible. The fact that you actually see partner alert is of great value and it greatly helps you to make your call. Your partner opens 1NT, RHO doubles. You hold 5H and 4D and about 6 HCP. You bid 2D though you are not sure if you play "system on" in this particular position. Partner fortunately alerts ("transfer!") and lefty bids 3C, pass, pass. >From your partner's alert you know that you are on the same page with him so can be sure that he knows about your hearts so you can safely protect with 3D - it is safe as you know partner won't take it as a natural bid showing 6+D. Without the alert you might not risk 3D and you might decide to pass to avoid confusion hoping to go plus against 3C. Cheating? Of course but this kind of foul play is going on all the time in bridge. Many, many pairs who consider themselves 100% clean and who would kill you if you mentioned to them that they _are_ using help from the fact that partner alerted a bid. The most typical situation is that if you keep making artificial bids and partner keeps alerting them then they are bound to conduct a more subtle auction leaving all options open as you can be sure there is no risk of ending up in 4C on a 3-2 fit. How do I know that? Put any pair who has never played with screens behind them and you'll see what happens. The lack of this confirmation from partner that we are still on the same wavelength can be at times devastating. I have seen numerous examples of this. The amount of non-verbal information transmitted in bridge is big, especially at the lower levels. When they introduced screens in the Polish Third Division the effect was unbelievable - suddenly bids asking for kings started becoming final contracts. And in 99% of cases these were pairs everybody considers clean. I've played in clubs in Paris, Helsinki & Denver. And I have seen this phenomenon frequently. And we both know that it happens all the time - and also that it is very hard to detect. That's why we use screens. Not to prevent cheaters like Buratti - Lanzarotti or Facchini - Zucchelli because it is almost just as easy to cheat with sceens and without them. There are 1000000 ways - tray moving, the way that you put bidding cards on the tray etc. > Do you suggest that this is illegal? Yes, it is illegal. It is made illegal by one law and yet it is required by another. It isn't something unusual without screens: in face-to-face-no-screens bridge this problem of conflicting laws is simply unavoidable. You must face the fact that it exists - not get around it by pretending that "as the matter of fact my partner never hears my explanations." [SNIP] > If, therefore, I give an explanation to an opponent, I do not "know that > it > is going to wake up partner", for I know that partner will act as if he > had > not been woken up. Nope - you don't know that. Even the most honest of players cannot say with certainty that they would act in the same way if they didn't hear the explanation. As M.Rosenberg once pointed out - even if you think you are 100% certain that you would act the same you still cannot be sure that it was not the UI that cristalized that decision in you. We are humans, we are physically incapable of erasing the UI from our minds. So I'd rather not send the UI at all. > > So what? Since partner will not act as though the wheels have come off, > the > effect is the same as if I had not communicated anything to him at all. > This is the quintessence of our disagreement. You don't know that. You don't even know that about yourself. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rusz pupe na wybory! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 16:11:07 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:11:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: <200710122349.QAA13823@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200710122349.QAA13823@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <747F286D-98C2-4C7E-809B-A510F1E29CE9@starpower.net> On Oct 12, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Collier wrote: > >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing >>> between >>> the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal". >> >> I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word "convention" >> appears in the new Law 40B. What are we supposed to deduce from >> the lack of >> a definition? > > The new Law 40B says, if I read it correctly: Any partnership > agreement is a Special Partnership Understanding (SPU) if the > Regulating Authority (RA) says it is; conventions are automatically > considered SPU's unless the RA says they aren't. Since this pretty > much gives RA full authority to determine which agreements are SPU's, > I'd say that the definition of "convention" could also be left up to > the RA's, since their responsibility here is to make known which > agreements are SPU's and which ones aren't. On the other hand, I'm > not sure... the last phrase seems to say that calls with "artificial > meanings" are always SPU's, and RA's can't designate them otherwise. > On the other hand, the ordering of the sentence is a bit strange and > maybe that "unless" clause applies both to "conventions" and to "calls > with artificial meanings". Or is the list in this sentence supposed > to be exhaustive---i.e. "conventions" and "calls with artificial > meanings" are SPU's if the RA doesn't say otherwise, and others (even > if they meet the "not readily understood" criterion of 40B1(a)) are > not? It's not clear to me what the authors were trying to say here. On noticing that the authors had dropped "convention" from the definitions in favor of newly defining "artificial call", I had hopes that they would finally regularize their terminology in this area, which has proven problematic in the past. With L40 rewritten, as expected, to pander to the 800-pound ACBL gorilla by eliminating any possible restriction on their ability to dictate how people bid, the opportunity was there to do so. So I was disappointed to see "convention" pop up in the new L40. Worst of all, L40B1(b) makes sense only if there is some presumably definable difference between a "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning", but gives no clue as to what that distinction might be. That the distinction does not appear to have any practical effect on how L40 (or any other law) would actually operate is all the more reason for (if it's not too late) rewriting it to eliminate the reference to "convention", which would allow it to be expunged from the lawbook altogether. There is an error in the index, where "Convention" appears under the heading "Parnership understanding" incorrectly indexed to "DEFN" (p. 68 of the PDF). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 16:19:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:19:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> Message-ID: <471376F4.7080901@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [KC] > > If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not "communicating > through alerts" than what is? > > [DALB] > > Alerting a bid that partner does expect me to alert is, by this token, also > communicating through alerts - "it's all right, partner - I've remembered > the system". Do you suggest that this is illegal? > Well, on the basis of L73B1, yes it is. But we have for a long time seen the acceptance that UI combined with AI of the same content does not trigger any L16 limitations. > [KC] > > If are giving your opponents an explanation that you know is going to wake > up partner that you are breaking L73B1. > > [DALB] > > There are (at least) two ways in which we may prevent communication from A > to B. Either: > > [1] we prevent A from saying anything; or > [2] we prevent B from hearing what A says. > > Now, since A is required to say something when asked for an explanation of > his methods, we cannot follow [1]. Therefore we must if possible follow [2]. > That is one of the reasons why we use screens in certain competitions, and > why we prevent alerts and explanations from being seen by partner in online > bridge. > Well, it is only you that says that A is required to say something. I say something else. So in fact, I follow your [1]. You see, you try to see it through logically and you can get there. > In most cases, however, we cannot physically prevent B from hearing what A > says - screens are not used in bridge clubs, and it is impractical because > of time considerations and general convenience to send B away from the table > every time A gives an explanation. Therefore we construct a legal framework > in which B has a duty not to act on an awareness of what A says, since the > effect of this is the same as if B had not heard it. > > If, therefore, I give an explanation to an opponent, I do not "know that it > is going to wake up partner", for I know that partner will act as if he had > not been woken up. If he fails to do so, of course, he is in breach of the > Laws, but I do not know in advance that partner is going to break the Laws. > Yes David, and that is why your actions are termed "acceptable". You do willingly break one law, and I don't burn you at the stake for it (pun intended). Because you do so in the belief that you are following another law which you believe to be higher. But similarly, you should not wael me at the stake because I break another law while wishing to follow this one. And that has been my point all along. You continue to defend your actions and condemn mine, while actually we should be trying to solve the riddle of "which is the prime duty". Hence the title that I gave this thread. Sadly, apart from Hirsh, who gave one argument on primacy, all of you have continued to argue that the MS actions are legal. They are not. Or you have tried to prove that the dWS actions are illegal. Futile, since I admit that they are. > [KC] > > If > > a) your partner is unaware of the system mishap > b) you say something at the table - something you can be 100% certain he > will hear (this is why an analogy with the waiter is false) > c) your partner becomes aware that you're having a bidding misunderstanding > > then you have just communicated to partner that the wheels have come off. > > [DALB] > > So what? Since partner will not act as though the wheels have come off, the > effect is the same as if I had not communicated anything to him at all. > And yet L73B1 does condemn the sender of the information. And L75D2 explicitely states that you should not communicate it either. And finally, his actions will not be the same as if you had not communicated anything at all. Consider that if you don't say "that was not Blackwood", he may fall on his feet. Whereas if you do say it, he is bound by L16 and will only fall on his feet if he considers it ethical. And then you will only keep that score if the Director also agrees that it is ethical. So the result of not giving the UI is not the same as that of giving it! OK? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 16:31:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:31:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman's intepretation assumes that partner is an unlawful and unethical > player who will not follow the constraints of 73C, so that the only option > to prevent an advantage from accruing to his side is to violate disclosure > to the opponents. Rather than violate Law to handle such a player, I do > suggest not playing with them. > No Hirsh, I do not assume that partner does not know his L16 obligations. But I do assume that if I don't give him any UI, the final outcome will be better than if I do give him UI. When I don't give UI, two things may happen: - he may wake up, and we get a reasonable score; or - he stays asleep, and we get the bad score we were heading for But if I do give UI, four things can happen: - he decides it's more ethical to stay asleep, and we get the bad score (please note that this is more likely now than before) - he decides that he has no LA to waking up, and he does, and the TD agrees (we have the same reasonable score, but far less likely) - he decides to wake up, but the TD does not agree, and gives us the bad score we were heading for - he decides to wake up, the TD does not agree, and gives us the worst score he can think of. Both through frequency and through even worse scores from the TD, we end up with a worse score than needed. OK, we need to subtract from the first set the score correction because of the (second) MI. > HdW: > > No David, that is not absurd, because until we have heard him > misexplain, we are under the legal impression that whatever we tell > opponents will not be unknown to him, and will be treated by the TD as > AI, even though technically it is UI. Thus, while we are indeed > communicating something to partner, it is something that we suppose he > knows. But if we know that he does not know (or is mistaken in) > something, to then communicate that fact to opponents is at the same > time a communication to partner, and that is forbidden by L73B1. > > > HD: > > Herman's interpretation also assumes that you know when partner will be > awakened by your explanation. The MI situation is simply a special case > where you are sure that the wheels have come off. However, all explanations > to the opponents are UI, and many will wake up partner even if the opponents > have not asked him a question that allows you to know that the wheels are > off. If so, how do you know when not to disclose? You don't, but it doesn't > matter. Whether MI is present or not, it's all UI. Redundant AI is > completely irrelevant, except insofar as it limits the logical alternatives > under L16. If you cannot provide UI to partner, you cannot explain your > methods to the opponents if partner can hear. Ever. It's all UI. This is > the real dWs, and it's completely silly. If you follow the dWs logic to its > endpoint, explaining your methods to the opponents is not legal because it > provides UI to partner. I don't know what game that is, but it's not bridge. > this is the argument: If you follow the dWS further than Herman ever intended it followed, you arrive at something silly. So Herman must be wrong. Anybody spot the logical fallacy here? > When making explanations to opponents, we are not under any legal impression > (technical or otherwise) that what we say will be known to partner and is > technically AI, because there is no provision anywhere in Law for an > explanation to the opponents to become AI. It's not, as L73C makes > perfectly clear. We are under the assumption that partner will obey L73C > (and L16A1). Accordingly, we tell the truth to the opponents, as required by > the Laws cited above, and let partner handle the 73C implications. > Well, this has been dealt with before, and some of you don't agree with my interpretation there either. My interpretation is that UI+AI = AI. If you don't agree with that, all bridge becomes unplayable, not just this special case. If you do agree with that, this argument does not work. You cannot have it both ways. > Hirsch Davis > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 16:39:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:39:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071015080337.171ac3f0@linuxbox> References: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> <47134D97.1070301@skynet.be> <20071015080337.171ac3f0@linuxbox> Message-ID: <47137B98.2040909@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:23:03 +0200 > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> If L73B1 includes communication through questions asked, then surely >> it includes "communication directed at opponents but received by >> partner". >> > > I've always believed that "communication through questions asked" was > meant to outlaw things like the "defence" to an opening weak 1NT where > > pass = 0-10 > ask opp to confirm range and then pass = 11-14 > double = 15+ > > *That's* communicating with partner through questions asked! > > (And yes, Herman, I've picked the clearest example that comes to mind > again. No doubt you'll want me to "get real", like last time.) > No, it's a good example. But why do you think your interpretation should be the right one? Obviously because it is yours, and unless challenged, we always believe we are right. But really, this is not important. This question merely arises because some people say that the MS actions are legal. They are not, and L73B1 is only one of 2 laws that they are breaking. Maybe L73B1 was intended for the kind of actions you suggest above (although that seems to fall in L73B2 already), and maybe not. But can you really be sure that it is legal? > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 16:51:01 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:51:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:12 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > > When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed > artificially or has passed partner's artificial > call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the > option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the > following provisions apply: Good grief, I hope it isn't too late to change this! "When a player has bid out of rotation, or has made a pass out of rotation which is either artificial or is a pass of an artificial call (see Law 30C)..." As written, it applies to artificial passes made in rotation but subsequently cancelled for some other reason. I don't think that was what was intended. BTW, there should be either a comma after "artificially" or no comma after "30C)", and there should definitely be a comma after "cancelled". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 15 17:22:58 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:22:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071015112258.4d283d7a@linuxbox> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:31:39 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > > this is the argument: > If you follow the dWS further than Herman ever intended it followed, > you arrive at something silly. So Herman must be wrong. Anybody spot > the logical fallacy here? > No, because it sounds like a fairly standard application of reductio ad absurdum to me. Why don't you see whether you can do the same for the MS viewpoint? 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/20071015/b48eedd7/attachment.pgp From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 15 17:40:50 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:40:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47137B98.2040909@skynet.be> References: <000a01c80f0f$40b44060$6400a8c0@WINXP> <47134D97.1070301@skynet.be> <20071015080337.171ac3f0@linuxbox> <47137B98.2040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20071015114050.0268b345@linuxbox> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:39:20 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > > No, it's a good example. But why do you think your interpretation > should be the right one? Obviously because it is yours, and unless > challenged, we always believe we are right. > No, I personally believe it to be right because it's how I was taught the Laws worked, and you and your supporters haven't convinced me otherwise. And yes, that may well be a consequence of having played most of my offline bridge in England, where there is (or was) an EBU regulation which very specifically prohibited players from "inventing" system on the spot, and it seems to me that's exactly what a dWS advocate is doing. But take a look at the other reply I've just posted. Hirsch has shown that your interpretation, if followed through, leads to silly conclusions. If you can do the same for the majority opinion, then go ahead - but at the moment, if one interpretation leads to silly conclusions, and the other doesn't, then that's proof enough for me. > But really, this is not important. This question merely arises > because some people say that the MS actions are legal. They are not, > and L73B1 is only one of 2 laws that they are breaking. Maybe L73B1 > was intended for the kind of actions you suggest above (although that > seems to fall in L73B2 already), and maybe not. But can you really be > sure that it is legal? > As sure as I can be, Herman. My line of thought is that I doubt that the WBFLC intended to declare the game of bridge to be illegal. Therefore one of the two interpretations (all right, or possibly an as-yet-unmentioned third interpretation) has to be the correct one. Considering the two options, and yes, believing that ONE of them has to be the legal one, I think the evidence points to the fact that the dWS is wrong. 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/20071015/1e4e5cdf/attachment.pgp From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 15 17:45:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:45:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c80f42$71ac8910$6400a8c0@WINXP> I never thought of that as a problem, but I agree; The text could be better. The way I understand Law 31 is as if it had been written: When a player, out of rotation, has bid, passed artificially or passed partner's artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled ....... Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: 15. oktober 2007 16:51 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:12 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > > > > When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed > > artificially or has passed partner's artificial > > call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the > > option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the > > following provisions apply: > > Good grief, I hope it isn't too late to change this! > > "When a player has bid out of rotation, or has made a pass out of > rotation which is either artificial or is a pass of an artificial > call (see Law 30C)..." > > As written, it applies to artificial passes made in rotation but > subsequently cancelled for some other reason. I don't think that was > what was intended. > > BTW, there should be either a comma after "artificially" or no comma > after "30C)", and there should definitely be a comma after "cancelled". > > 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 adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 15 17:50:24 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:50:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:43:01 EDT." <471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > 3. I am not convinced that changing "convention" to "artificial call" is > a big step forward. The definition of "artificial call:" > a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being > information taken for granted by players generally) other than > willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a > pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it > promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. > seems to make an ordinary "nothing to say" pass into an artificial call, > at least if the pass occurs after at least one bid. I don't think it does, although I can see how the word order is a bit problematic and could lead to misinterpretation. First, I'd assume that the parenthesized phrase applies to passes as well as to bids, doubles, and redoubles---I cannot imagine that it wouldn't apply, even though its placement in the Law may make it seem that it doesn't. So if players generally would see a certain pass as meaning "nothing to say", then it's not artificial. Second, since a "nothing to say" pass would not promise any values or any strength, the only way you could see this as artificial is if it "denies values other than in the last suit named"; is your thinking here that if a pass denies "general values", rather than specifically denying values in the last suit named, then that makes it artificial? If so, then there are probably some words missing from the definition. Maybe it was intended to mean something like "promises or denies values IN A SUIT other than the last suit named", but I don't know exactly what the authors had in mind. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 18:47:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:47:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: <00d401c80dc1$279fea60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <4710156D.40505@ntlworld.com> <002601c80d85$fd4aac40$0701a8c0@john> <00d401c80dc1$279fea60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The final revision to the initial language about asking questions > eviscerates > the whole of Law 20F and is an abomination. Players during the > auction and > defenders are now allowed to question individual calls with > impunity. Law 16 > applies? In general, baloney. Only the most outrageous examples are > caught and > "rectified." At least they could have reworded 20F2, which says > that only > declarer can question an individual call. Why not simplify? > > Law 20F. At his turn to bid or play a player may question the > meaning of any > opposing call or calls, including blah, blah, but questioniing a > single call may > be subject to Law 16B1. > > The tack-on was lazy. Worse, it now permits our local cheaters to > get away with > unethical questioning and gives pros the opportunity to use the > "pro question" > (whose answer is known to the pro but perhaps not to the customer) > about a > single call. Damage is usually very hard to determine, so they get > away with it. Like it or not, all this really did was legalize something that has been de facto acceptable almost universally anyhow. I very much doubt that it will lead to "local cheaters" getting away with any more inappropriate questioning than they do now. On the contrary, IME players who ask "pro questions" generally defend the legality of doing so; they are not cheaters, and will stop now that we have a new law (L20G1) that makes it clear that it is illegal. > Another tacked-on change (to 16B1) says that we can call the TD at > any time > following an instance of UI, even before there is evidence of an > infraction. > First it says "at end of play," deleting "as to dummy's hand, when > dummy is > exposed." and then says in a tacked-on footnote, never mind, you > can call the > TD at any time. Personally, I'm going to call the TD if sight of > dummy tells me > there was an infraction by that player, otherwise I'll wait until > end of play. > The footnote advice causes too much unnecessary work for TDs, who > can do NOTHING > until play is completed. In the great majority of such cases there > is no > evidence of an infraction. Yes, that's for the TD to decide, but > they are too > busy to take on that task for every instance of UI. The only reason > to call the > TD earlier is to help determine whether UI existed if the opponents > deny it > (good luck with that!) I agree with Marv's criticism of the dropping of "as to dummy's hand...", and suspect that most players will, like Marv, continue to call the TD when the "sight of dummy tells [them] there was an infraction", if only to avoid be accused of "double shotting" if they wait until the hand is over. I disagree with the suggestion that the new L16 per se condones calling the TD when there is no evidence of an infraction; L16B3 clearly instructs us to "summon the Director when play ends", and that only with "substantial reason to believe" that there has been an infraction. I suspect Marv is, however, concerned (as am I) that the ACBL, with the authority explicitly granted by L16B2, will not only condone the practice, but may even require it. If they do, though, blame them, not the new footnote. I don't read the footnote as saying "never mind", but rather just that a mistimed call does not compromise one's rights under this law. It is, in effect, a reminder of the fundamental and necessary principle that a player can never place himself at a disadvantage by calling the director, provided he does so neither discourteously nor intentionally frivolously. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 19:05:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:05:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Obviously_this_is_the_p?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rime_duty?= In-Reply-To: <470F90B6.00000C.84019@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <000501c80cdf$3273cf70$9fd65047@DFYXB361> <470F90B6.00000C.84019@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > De : raija > > If transmission of UI were a serious offence, then you would likely > find > bridge nothing but a "serious offence". It is the use of the UI > that is an > infraction. > > AG : really ? Then would you please explain to me the sentence : > "it is an offence to communicate through ... explanations given or > not given" in L73. (well, 'm retranslating from French, but the > equivalent sentence will be found) The explanation lies in the heading of L73B1; the sentence quoted by Alain refers to "gratuitous information". "Gratuitous: given or received without cost or obligation" [AHD]. Information which you are obligated to give (as by L75) is not, by definition, gratuitous, and L73B1 does not apply to it. > > > For an example of something genuinely "gratuitous" that many would consider "a serious offence", Alain need look no further than those extremely annoying dancing cartoons that appear at the bottom of his posts. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 19:23:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:23:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8615090C-C8EE-4505-81A6-4A4849167763@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2007, at 9:15 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Marvin French: > >> I see they dodged the problem of defining >> "convention" under DEFINITIONS, while still using >> the word. > > The reason that the word "convention" appears just > once in the new fabulous Lawbook, in Law 40B1(b), is > purely for transitional reasons. The Drafting > Committee did not want to invalidate pre-existing > regulations created by Regulating Authorities which > happened to use the word "convention". > > What's the problem? One is that those regulations that are thus not invalidated have instead been rendered meaningless, by "undefining" the critical term on which their entire meaning depends; it would clearly have been better to invalidate them so as to force RAs with such regulations to revisit them, if only to supply the now-missing definition. Another is that it requires RAs who do *not* "decide[] otherwise" to treat conventions as "special partnership understandings" without telling them what those things that they must so treat are. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 20:42:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:42:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2007, at 1:00 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > >> I am having trouble envisaging the allowance in the >> new L27C(1) of changing an attempted insufficient bid, >> with a double or pass which "incorporates the >> information contained in the insufficient bid". >> >> Could anyone give an example of what this means? > > LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID[...] > > C. Replaced at Lowest Level by Bid, Double or Pass > > 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the > lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates > the information contained in the insufficient bid, the > auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both > sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following[..."] > > The forthcoming advisory Appendix to the Lawbook will > no doubt fully explain Law 27C1, but unfortunately it > was a trifle difficult to draft that Appendix in the > few hours between finalisation, ratification and > publication of the 2007 Laws. > > For what it is worth, my highly unofficial Law 27C1 > example is: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D 1S 1H(1) (2) > X (3) > > (1) East did not notice North's overcall, instead > mistakenly thinking that North had passed. > > (2) South declines to accept East's insufficient bid. > > (3) East replaces their insufficient bid of 1H with a > negative double, which in the East-West methods > guarantees four or more hearts, and now Law 27C1 > permits the auction to continue for both sides with > no restrictions (although other parts of Law 27 note > that the Director may later need to award an adjusted > score). I had anticipated problems arising from a (beneficial) change that would have substituted similarity for conventionality in this context, with arguments going to the question of "how similar is 'similar'". But instead of "similarity" we get "incorporation", a very different and totally unexpected kettle of fish, without even a modifying "essentially" or "substantially" that would allow some flexibility of interpretation. As written, any scintilla of information contained in the insuffient bid but not the replacement bid triggers L27D, whereas no amount of additional information conveyed by the replacement does so. Thus: Case 1: 1S-1C/2C. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to open the bidding. A 1C opening shows 2+ clubs and 12+ HCP. A 2C overcall of 1S shows 5+ clubs and 12+ HCP. L27C applies. Case 2: 1S-1H/2H. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to open the bidding. A 1H opening shows 5+ hearts and 12+ HCP. A 2H overcall of 1S shows 5+ hearts and 10+ HCP. L27D applies. If that's what the authors intended I don't have a problem with it. I do wonder, though, whether it really is. It will work quite well, if perhaps in somewhat unexpected ways, in situations where the offender's hand meets the systemic requirements for the substituted call. I do, however, anticipate a whole new area of problematic jurisprudence arising from the cases in which it fails to do so while fully conforming to that subset of the requirements which were "incorporated" in the insufficient bid, and expect such cases to be quite frequent, even typical. On balance, I like it; the principle is sound, and once we have figured out how to handle the problem delineated above in a consistent manner we will, IMO, be better off than either previously or under the sort of change I expected. I must say I am taken by surprise; I would never have anticipated so radical a change to come so totally unexpectedly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 15 20:47:13 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:47:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <866C12DA-C971-414A-B1AF-73F2F0469E26@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 15, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > These are the only times they need their ears - they never listen > to director > announcements. There's some truth to that last bit, but.. around here, anyway, directors "announcements" usually consist of either "while it's quiet, I/Dave/Joe Blow have a few announcements about future games/ tournaments/irrelevancies" or "if you haven't already moved for your next round, you're behind". Rarely do we get a description of the movement, or a timely call of the round, or an announcement of *which* round it is. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 15 20:49:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:49:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7081D4F1-5887-454A-B0A0-DF8AC5669AAD@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 14, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Which of these should I say every time---and why? One need not - and in most if not all cases should not - include in one's explanation of partner's last bid the meaning of one's own future bid. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 21:04:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:04:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19E04331-8DEA-4A35-B5F5-A94E0210902E@starpower.net> On Oct 14, 2007, at 2:43 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL > > If the Director believes that a review of his decision > on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary > power could well be in order, he shall advise a > contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the > matter to an appropriate committee. > > Richard Hills: > > The late Edgar Kaplan duly gets an acknowledgement in > the Preface of the 2007 Lawbook, as a large amount of > the Kaplanesque language of the 1975, 1987 and 1997 > Lawbooks has been retained in the 2007 Lawbook. > > Like Robespierre, Edgar Kaplan chose to be a seagreen > Incorruptible, and Edgar also launched reforms via a > Revolution (in Edgar's case, from circa 1985 to circa > 1995) which, like the French Revolution, had some > unintended consequences in causing a Reign of Terror. > > Edgar's laudable aim was to discourage offending sides > from committing their offences in the first place. To > this end, Edgar caused the ACBL Laws Commission to > give guidance to ACBL Directors that they should > routinely rule against offending sides, and then let a > subsequent Appeals Committee hearing decide which more > sensible ruling should have been made initially. > > The 1997 Law 83 contained a fossilised remnant of this > Reign of Terror against offending sides, as it ordered > a Kaplanesque Director (after that Kaplanesque TD had > routinely and arbitrarily ruled against the offending > side) to advise the gobsmacked offending side that if > they wished to miss their dinner break, they did have > a right to appeal. > > The new Law 83 now has the criterion "... review ... > **could well** be in order" to discourage the TD from > advising offending sides to appeal when the TD has the > strong belief that an appeal is unnecessary. This > change was inserted because Edgar Kaplan's Reign of > Terror has been superseded by the current policy that > a Director should strive to produce a sensible ruling > immediately. Ouch! The new L83, even more readily than the old one, can (and presumably will) be cited in justification of a TD's failing to tell players they have the right to appeal a ruling on no more grounds than his conviction that he made the right ruling. Has anyone ever gotten a ruling from a TD who thought he was giving a wrong one? TDs should be encouraged to educate players about their rights, not discouraged from doing so based on their own presumed infallibility. We appear to have weakened a law that arguably needed strengthening. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 15 21:53:02 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:53:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471376F4.7080901@skynet.be> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> <471376F4.7080901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c80f65$02e49ef0$08addcd0$@com> [HdW] Well, it is only you that says that A is required to say something. [DALB] No, it isn't. The Laws require that our partnership understandings be disclosed to the opponents. The regulations (usually) require that this is done by alerts, questions, and explanations. [HdW] I say something else. So in fact, I follow your [1]. You see, you try to see it through logically and you can get there. [DALB] Get where? Neither in your scenario (North says "Blackwood", which means that South will say "one ace" and not "minor-suit preference") nor in mine (North says "Blackwood, but South will still say "minor-suit preference") is there any suggestion that South says nothing at all. [HdW] You do willingly break one law [DALB] No, I don't. I assume that partner will not receive the information that I transmit to my opponents - or, what is the same thing, I assume that no one will be able to conclude from his behaviour that he has received it, since he will behave as if he hasn't. That is, I have not communicated anything to partner, so that I have not broken any laws at all. The fact that you need to concoct the argument "alerting to tell partner what he may already know is UI, but then a miracle occurs and it becomes AI" should in itself suggest to you that you are being absurd. Law 73 does not make a distinction between what partner may know and what he may not know, so that if you consider any explanation to an opponent to be a communication to partner per Law 73, you are forced to consider all explanations to an opponent to be communications to partner per Law 73, and therefore illegal. Since it is not illegal - indeed, it is mandatory - to give explanations to the opponents, your argument is not merely wrong in the real world, but wrong in all possible worlds. [HdW] And yet L73B1 does condemn the sender of the information. [DALB] No, it doesn't. A transmission is not a communication - it becomes a communication only if it is received, and it matters that it has been received only if it is acted upon. [HdW] And L75D2 explicitly states that you should not communicate it either. No, it doesn't. If it did, your reliance on it would be as ill-founded as your reliance on Law 73B1. Fortunately for you, Law 75D2 states that a player who is aware that his partner has given a misexplanation may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. Why is this so? Because, of course, such an indication is unauthorised information to partner - it would not matter in the least if only the opponents became aware that a mistake had been made. But just as an explanation is not a "communication" under Law 73B1, it is not an "indication" under Law 75D2 either, because partner is supposed to be unaware of it. Again, following the de Wael interpretation to its logical conclusion, we reach this absurdity: North South 1C 1H 1S 2D (1) 2NT Pass (1) Alerted by North and explained as fourth suit forcing to game. South, who knows that the partnership methods are that fourth suit is not forcing to game and that North's 2NT shows a minimum, passes. According to the dWS he is not allowed to do this, because it is an indication that a mistake has been made. Do you consider that South is in fact acting illegally? [HdW] Consider that if you don't say "that was not Blackwood", he may fall on his feet. Whereas if you do say it, he is bound by L16 and will only fall on his feet if he considers it ethical. And then you will only keep that score if the Director also agrees that it is ethical. So the result of not giving the UI is not the same as that of giving it! [DALB] So what? Perhaps next time, partner will learn the system. David Burn London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 22:09:27 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:09:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7081D4F1-5887-454A-B0A0-DF8AC5669AAD@rochester.rr.com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> <7081D4F1-5887-454A-B0A0-DF8AC5669AAD@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710151309k2a40107cx87f13fefdcd3f3ed@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > One need not - and in most if not all cases should not - include in > one's explanation of partner's last bid the meaning of one's own > future bid. > So you wound not say, "puppets 3C"---unless, perhaps, using screens? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 22:50:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:50:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014205534.0c1ad848@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071014133859.01be7cf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <3E933ECD977242328E4AAA055640D4D5@erdos> <6.1.0.6.2.20071014205534.0c1ad848@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > David Grabiner: > >> West bids 4NT, Blackwood. >> North bids 5H. >> East bids 5D, one ace, then corrects it to pass, which shows one >> ace under >> DOPI. > > I can understand these DOPI, PODI cases. I play DEPO, so double > would show an even number of key cards, but by insufficient bid may > have show zero. That meaning would still be contained in the double, > but my alteration to double means a little extra.. The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would not have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense of the original insufficient bid and correction. In David's example, the auction 4NT-5H-X would have revealed that East holds one ace, and the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed the same information; L27C1 applies. But if the double had been DEPO rather than D0P1, 4NT-5H-X would only have shown an odd number of aces, whereas the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed that the odd number is in fact one -- that is information "not incorporated" in the double; L27D applies. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 23:27:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:27:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4713DB27.4010004@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 15/10/2007 12:23:07 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > >>> Partners shall not communicate > >>> (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given > > On HdW's interpretation, the person will just sit there if he suspects a > wheel has come off. In practice he answers the question even if the answer shows > that a wheel has come off. There is no conflict here, each player can > "effectively" prevent the "communication" as David Burn clearly explains, by > pretending to be deaf but not dumb. > > I recall my partner bidding 5D to which I replied 5NT in a slam auction; > when asked I explained 5D as "please cue kings" and my partner explained 5NT as > "no, but extra length". Everyone had a laugh. We all knew immediately what > had happened, as 5C would have been the enquiry "have you got the queen of > trumps?". So everyone knew this actually meant "partner, you had the last explanation wrong". A clear violation of L75D2. > My partner continued to pretend he had not misbid with 5D and therefore > treated 5NT as "no kings, but still interested" which is what it would have > been if he had correctly bid 5C. So there is no problem as long as a player > is deaf but not dumb. > Indeed there is no problem. Except for the Director, who must now judge if the player really did not use the UI. Remember the case from Pula and how much trouble I have in getting Sven to agree to a ruling of 5HX-3? Is 5Di a LA or not - we shall never know what the player would have done, because his partner knowingly spilt the beans. > In fact, why not issue all players with earplugs which they are only allowed > to remove when asking questions about opponent's bids or when dummy? These > are the only times they need their ears - they never listen to director > announcements. > Good suggestion, perhaps. But then scrap the rule demanding that wrong explanations are corrected before the lead, of course. And also remember this - contrary to bridge with screens, the explanations are heard by the whole table. So if you give the players earplugs, they will reveal any misunderstanding. In bridge with screens, and in F2F, with dWS philosophy, this is not the case. Some people may think that this is the correct way to play bridge (and some may not, I wholly agree with that) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 15 23:38:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:38:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c80f65$02e49ef0$08addcd0$@com> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> <471376F4.7080901@skynet.be> <000101c80f65$02e49ef0$08addcd0$@com> Message-ID: <4713DDE7.4070607@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Well, it is only you that says that A is required to say something. > > [DALB] > > No, it isn't. The Laws require that our partnership understandings be > disclosed to the opponents. The regulations (usually) require that this is > done by alerts, questions, and explanations. > What I meant is that in this situation, _you_ believe you are required to say this. I don't believe that. > [HdW] > > I say something else. So in fact, I follow your [1]. You see, you try to see > it through logically and you can get there. > > [DALB] > > Get where? Neither in your scenario (North says "Blackwood", which means > that South will say "one ace" and not "minor-suit preference") nor in mine > (North says "Blackwood, but South will still say "minor-suit preference") is > there any suggestion that South says nothing at all. > > [HdW] > > You do willingly break one law > > [DALB] > > No, I don't. Yes you do. L75D2. > I assume that partner will not receive the information that I > transmit to my opponents - or, what is the same thing, I assume that no one > will be able to conclude from his behaviour that he has received it, since > he will behave as if he hasn't. That is, I have not communicated anything to > partner, so that I have not broken any laws at all. > > The fact that you need to concoct the argument "alerting to tell partner > what he may already know is UI, but then a miracle occurs and it becomes AI" > should in itself suggest to you that you are being absurd. Law 73 does not > make a distinction between what partner may know and what he may not know, > so that if you consider any explanation to an opponent to be a communication > to partner per Law 73, you are forced to consider all explanations to an > opponent to be communications to partner per Law 73, and therefore illegal. > Since it is not illegal - indeed, it is mandatory - to give explanations to > the opponents, your argument is not merely wrong in the real world, but > wrong in all possible worlds. > And yet it is the thing the lawmakers wanted when they wrote L75D2 in the first place. But let's not discuss this under the old laws any more, but under the new ones, OK? > [HdW] > > And yet L73B1 does condemn the sender of the information. > > [DALB] > > No, it doesn't. A transmission is not a communication - it becomes a > communication only if it is received, and it matters that it has been > received only if it is acted upon. > And yet the transmission is forbidden as well, by L73B1 and L75D2. > [HdW] > > And L75D2 explicitly states that you should not communicate it either. > > No, it doesn't. Yes it does. Quite literally so. There is no exception to the "in any manner", nor to the "for the duration of the auction in the 2007 equivalent. You may argue that it is accepted, you may argue that it is acceptable, but you may not argue that it is not forbidden by law. > If it did, your reliance on it would be as ill-founded as > your reliance on Law 73B1. Fortunately for you, Law 75D2 states that a > player who is aware that his partner has given a misexplanation may not > indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. > > Why is this so? Because, of course, such an indication is unauthorised > information to partner - it would not matter in the least if only the > opponents became aware that a mistake had been made. But just as an > explanation is not a "communication" under Law 73B1, it is not an > "indication" under Law 75D2 either, because partner is supposed to be > unaware of it. Again, following the de Wael interpretation to its logical > conclusion, we reach this absurdity: > > North South > 1C 1H > 1S 2D (1) > 2NT Pass > > (1) Alerted by North and explained as fourth suit forcing to game. > > South, who knows that the partnership methods are that fourth suit is not > forcing to game and that North's 2NT shows a minimum, passes. According to > the dWS he is not allowed to do this, because it is an indication that a > mistake has been made. Do you consider that South is in fact acting > illegally? > Well, maybe yes, but who said the laws were perfect? What I do say is that South should not, between two LAs not suggested by the UI he already has, choose the one which most easily conveys to North the fact that there was a mistake. But we can't run the game without some hierarchy in duties. IMO, the duty to make a bid not suggested by the UI of the first misexplanation has priority over the duty not to reveal the mistake, which in turn has priority over giving the correct information. > [HdW] > > Consider that if you don't say "that was not Blackwood", he may fall on his > feet. Whereas if you do say it, he is bound by L16 and will only fall on his > feet if he considers it ethical. And then you will only keep that score if > the Director also agrees that it is ethical. So the result of not giving the > UI is not the same as that of giving it! > > [DALB] > > So what? Perhaps next time, partner will learn the system. > This is the masochistic approach to system learning. If you get the system wrong, you are automatically judged to play 7NTXX. Of course, this does come from the man who (I still doubt if it was only in jest) suggested the penalty for revoking should be the cutting of the hand. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Oct 15 23:57:36 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:57:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Herman's intepretation assumes that partner is an unlawful and unethical >> player who will not follow the constraints of 73C, so that the only option >> to prevent an advantage from accruing to his side is to violate disclosure >> to the opponents. Rather than violate Law to handle such a player, I do >> suggest not playing with them. >> >> > > No Hirsh, I do not assume that partner does not know his L16 > obligations. But I do assume that if I don't give him any UI, the > final outcome will be better than if I do give him UI. > In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that). If partner is ethical, what is the problem?? Why lie about your agreements? The only answer I can come up with is: it is to be expected that giving MI will hurt my score less than giving UI , which casts some doubt on partner`s ability to handle UI, and on the abilities of the TD, who should give me the same rotten score in any case. My own score can never be of any import in this. I am legally obliged to follow the laws, and the devil take my score. Anything else is gamesmanship. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Oct 16 00:11:07 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:11:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c80f65$02e49ef0$08addcd0$@com> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c80f23$1e649780$5b2dc680$@com> <471376F4.7080901@skynet.be> <000101c80f65$02e49ef0$08addcd0$@com> Message-ID: <4713E57B.1060208@t-online.de> David Burn schrieb: > Why is this so? Because, of course, such an indication is unauthorised > information to partner - it would not matter in the least if only the > opponents became aware that a mistake had been made. But just as an > explanation is not a "communication" under Law 73B1, it is not an > "indication" under Law 75D2 either, because partner is supposed to be > unaware of it. Again, following the de Wael interpretation to its logical > conclusion, we reach this absurdity: > > North South > 1C 1H > 1S 2D (1) > 2NT Pass > > (1) Alerted by North and explained as fourth suit forcing to game. > > South, who knows that the partnership methods are that fourth suit is not > forcing to game and that North's 2NT shows a minimum, passes. According to > the dWS he is not allowed to do this, because it is an indication that a > mistake has been made. Do you consider that South is in fact acting > illegally? > > Rats. I came up with this line of argument this afternoon, but had to leave to play some Bridge before I found an example that worked, and now David has beaten me to the punch. :-) From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 00:12:45 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:12:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/07, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to > give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not > expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as > you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that). > If partner is ethical, what is the problem?? This thinking, though often heard on BLML, is too simplistic: What do you do if your partner incorrectly explained your agreements and is now on lead? Do you correct his explanation so there is no MI? Or are you silent to avoid giving him UI? The law here is designed to allow MI for the greater good (in this case) of avoiding UI. It is a clear fallacy to think that MI is always more horrible than UI. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 16 00:12:48 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:12:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <09fb01c80f78$851cabc0$f6c49851@stefanie> HdW: > No Hirsh, I do not assume that partner does not know his L16 > obligations. But I do assume that if I don't give him any UI, the > final outcome will be better than if I do give him UI. > When I don't give UI, two things may happen: > - he may wake up, and we get a reasonable score; or > - he stays asleep, and we get the bad score we were heading for > But if I do give UI, four things can happen: > - he decides it's more ethical to stay asleep, and we get the bad > score (please note that this is more likely now than before) > - he decides that he has no LA to waking up, and he does, and the TD > agrees (we have the same reasonable score, but far less likely) > - he decides to wake up, but the TD does not agree, and gives us the > bad score we were heading for > - he decides to wake up, the TD does not agree, and gives us the worst > score he can think of. > > Both through frequency and through even worse scores from the TD, we > end up with a worse score than needed. > OK, we need to subtract from the first set the score correction > because of the (second) MI. This is the whole basis of the dWS. To give players who have forgotten their system the chance to recover, and obtain the score they might have got without having forgotten. It is not in the slightest serving the interests of providing full disclosure to the opponents; they will get the correct information at the first legal opportunity. It is not clear to most anyone why this consideration is so important that it should override something spelled out clearly in the Laws. Anyway, it has been noted before that one can never be quite certain, without explanations, that partner is bidding the system correctly. Even if he fails to alert an alertable bid, we do not know whether he was daydreaming and simply forgot to alert. Thus, as has likewise been noted before, giving explanations to opponents, ever, is illegal. Clearly the whole thing is absurd, as 99.999% of the world is aware. Why, then, are people continuing to argue against it? It has been done many times before, and the only effect is to lend credence to the notion. In fact, the dWS may gain converts if it is continually allowed airtime. Why not just ignore it, people? Cheers Stefanie Rohan From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 00:14:47 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:14:47 +1300 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710151514o445056a1mf3e9ab5a86d07da3@mail.gmail.com> > Case 1: 1S-1C/2C. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to > open the bidding. A 1C opening shows 2+ clubs and 12+ HCP. A 2C > overcall of 1S shows 5+ clubs and 12+ HCP. L27C applies. > > Case 2: 1S-1H/2H. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to > open the bidding. A 1H opening shows 5+ hearts and 12+ HCP. A 2H > overcall of 1S shows 5+ hearts and 10+ HCP. L27D applies. I don't follow this. To my mind a 2C overcall does not incorporate "the information contained in " a 1C opening bid. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 00:46:28 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4713DB27.4010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c80f7d$39ada8b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > Remember the case from Pula and how much trouble I have in getting Sven to agree to a ruling of 5HX-3? If the case in question is that of the multi 2D opening bid that was misexplained your trouble was caused by you withholding essential information until the very last moment. If it is a different case I have no idea what you are referring to. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 16 00:56:33 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:56:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <09fb01c80f78$851cabc0$f6c49851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000d01c80f7e$a2076a30$20195e47@DFYXB361> Why not just ignore it, people? > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > Well said. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 01:13:59 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:13:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com><47131A34.1070707@skynet.be> <000001c80f0d$8662c2f0$932848d0$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 04:26 Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [HdW] > > Let's read L73B1 then again: (restructuring and numbering mine) > > Partners shall not communicate > (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made > (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures > (3) through questions asked or not asked > (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?) > [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to > change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?] > > While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) and > (4) > clearly refer to communications to opponents. > > It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the things > it > forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining things to > opponents. > > [DALB] > > Exactly right, Herman. Law 73B1 does indeed forbid the passing of > information to partner by explaining things to opponents. That is why, in > the remainder of Law 73 and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear that partner > (for legal purposes) does not receive the information contained in an > explanation to opponents, and one gives explanations on that basis. > > Of course, in reality partner is sitting at the table and can hear you > speak. But as Sven says, if I am sitting at the next table to you in a > restaurant and can hear what you order from the waiter, you are > nevertheless > not communicating to me, but to the waiter. I can understand your > difficulty, because you appear to regard the information contained in a > response to an opponent's question (or an order placed with the waiter) as > information communicated to whoever happens to be in earshot. You should > do > your best to cease to so regard it, because the Laws do not support (and > in > fact expressly proscribe) this interpretation. If it were the case that an > explanation to opponents was in fact a communication to partner, it would > be > illegal under your interpretation of Law 73 to explain your methods at > all. > Surely even you can see that this is absurd. > > [HdW] > > And anyway, it is hardly important. > > [DALB] > > On the contrary, it is the crux of the matter. An explanation to an > opponent > is not a communication to partner. It might help if you read Law 73C thus: > > When partner has failed in his duty to shut his eyes and cover his ears > while you have been alerting and explaining your methods to the opponents, > he must not act on what he has seen and heard. > > [HdW] > > My aim was to prove that the MS methods are illegal. I was challenged to > provide law numbers, and I gave 2 of them. David attacks one of those, and > I > think I have rebutted that attack. > > [DALB] > > You think many things, Herman. Most of them are true, but this is not. The > legal position is simply this: you must explain your methods to the > opponents, and partner must not be aware (or, what is the same thing, act > as > if he is aware) of anything contained in your explanation. That is what > the > MS says, and that is entirely consistent with the Laws as written. > > [HdW] > > David has not yet commented on L75D2 > [DALB] > This is another one of the things you think that are not true. > I have said elsewhere that L75D2 is irrelevant, But, this is not true. 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to correct partner's explanation. L75D2 thereby compels the partner to pay attention to such explanations so that he will correct them. The only view this permits is that the player cannot have 'virtual earplugs'. If he cannot hear the explanation [removed from the table during the explanation] he cannot be in a position to know that there needs to be a correction. And if he is not removed from the table he then is in a position where he must almost always execute himself or have an opponent assert he should be executed who has the TD do it. But perhaps it is best to follow the law. And what does the law provide? 1997L80F [2007L80B2f] specify that regulation not be in conflict with law. For instance, in recent days it has been recognized that the presence and the absence of an alert conveys information to partner other than by call or play. That is, it creates a communication with partner when the partnership has an alert system. So therefore such a partnership is in breach of 1997L73B1 and subject to 1997L73B2 when they agree to the CoC of a RA that compels the use of alerts. Ergo, alerts are in conflict with 1997L73B1, and, via 1997L80F alerts are forbidden. And if we are to believe that alerts are not for bridge [and I do believe it] then the answer must lie somewhere else- as Arthur Conan Doyle was known to say- Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Now, in a similar vein 1997L20 provides a system of communication between partners through the compulsion to respond to questions by the opponents. So, it would appear that the law is not very good at avoiding conflict with itself. Otherwise it would have valiantly tried to minimize the effects of responses to questions instead of conveying a unilateral right to ask them. I recognize the necessity for the ability to ask questions- but as a conditional privilege of propriety; not an unconditional entitlement. Ergo, it follows that if there must be communication between partners via responses to questions it is the place of law to mitigate it by relegating questions to be the last resort. regards roger pewick >because an explanation to opponents is > not "an indication in any manner that a mistake has been made" unless the > opponents receive two explanations that are in conflict (as where North > explains 4NT as minors and South explains the 5D response as one ace). > But, > like L73C, this Law applies only when a player has failed in his duty not > to > take any notice of his partner's explanations; moreover, it applies only > in > circumstances where one player is certain that the methods are not as > partner has explained them (note that this is different from partner not > having understood a call as the player intended it). Since this almost > never > happens, L75D2 almost never applies to anyone, for which reason it is a > good > thing that it has been removed from the 2007 Laws. > > David Burn > London, England From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 01:19:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:19:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4713DDE7.4070607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c80f81$c631a800$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > But let's not discuss this under the old laws any > more, but under the new ones, OK? Good grief! (Charlie Brown) Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 01:32:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:32:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710151309k2a40107cx87f13fefdcd3f3ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <4711DE63.7080801@skynet.be> <000501c80e4a$0f6b5400$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710140553n15eb6bbfo7c983c1391b7c620@mail.gmail.com> <000001c80e69$3e467920$bad36b60$@com> <2b1e598b0710141832h7aeb0cb4x584a405011844988@mail.gmail.com> <7081D4F1-5887-454A-B0A0-DF8AC5669AAD@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0710151309k2a40107cx87f13fefdcd3f3ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > So you wound not say, "puppets 3C"---unless, perhaps, using screens? Correct. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 01:46:06 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:46:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > This thinking, though often heard on BLML, is too simplistic: What do > you do if your partner incorrectly explained your agreements and is > now on lead? Do you correct his explanation so there is no MI? Or > are you silent to avoid giving him UI? The law here is designed to > allow MI for the greater good (in this case) of avoiding UI. The law tells you that if you are defending you are not to correct the MI at this time. So yes, I remain silent. And so should anyone else. If my partner is dummy, he is not on lead, and in any case if our side is declaring, we have *already* called the TD and explained there was (presumed) MI, so the situation doesn't arise in that case. > It is a clear fallacy to think that MI is always more horrible than > UI. "Horrible" has nothing to do with it. The question is one of legality - or perhaps of ethics, which in a game amounts to the same thing. It is a fundamental principle of this game that our opponents are entitled to know everything that we know from partnership understanding or experience, and that they are not entitled to know (or more precisely, to be told) what we have in our hands. It is also a fundamental principle of our game that we are entitled to base our actions on information gleaned from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms, comments and explanations from opponents. A corollary of this second principle is that we are *not* entitled to base our actions on extraneous information from partner. Given those two principles, I don't see how any rational person can assert that the DwS has any reasonable basis. Given that conclusion, it seems to me any further argument over the DwS is a waste of breath, time, space, and electrons. Excuse me, I have a lot of messages to delete. From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 02:40:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:40:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c80f8d$27932820$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. > > I have said elsewhere that L75D2 is irrelevant, > > But, this is not true. > > 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to correct partner's explanation. It does no such thing! What this law essentially says is that if a player notices an incorrect explanation given by his partner then he must do "so and so". This is not imposing any duty to (carefully) monitor everything partner says. Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Oct 16 03:00:19 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:00:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be><4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004501c80f8f$ec390940$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 10/15/07, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to >> give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not >> expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as >> you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that). >> If partner is ethical, what is the problem?? > > This thinking, though often heard on BLML, is too simplistic: What do > you do if your partner incorrectly explained your agreements and is > now on lead? Do you correct his explanation so there is no MI? Or > are you silent to avoid giving him UI? The law here is designed to > allow MI for the greater good (in this case) of avoiding UI. > > It is a clear fallacy to think that MI is always more horrible than UI. > > Jerry Fusselman > Every now and then, simply reading TFLB will actually give you an answer, if you bother to read it. Yes, as Ed Reppert indicated, you remain silent and let the TD sort it out at the end. L75D still applies, or are you ignoring that one also? However, you're not out of the woods by any means. The Declarer now has an incorrect explanation of your agreements, which he's going to use in determining the play of the hand. Neither the opponents nor the TD are going to be happy when this all comes to light. What Law allows MI for the greater good? Please cite any Law that states that you may provide the opponents with intentional MI under any circumstances. It doesn't matter whether MI or UI is more horrible. There is no Law that allows deliberate MI, and several that require full and complete disclosure of your systemic agreements to the opponents. There is no Law that prohibits UI, only it's use by Partner. The UI is legal, the MI is not. Therefore, you give the UI. Sometimes it really is that simple. It does get more complex when you start creating fictitious Laws as you go. Hirsch Davis From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 05:24:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:24:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A copy of an article written for the Victorian Bridge Association's newsletter. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * There were very trivial changes between the 1987 edition of the Lawbook and the 1997 edition of the Lawbook. However, radical and sweeping changes have been inserted into the 2007 Lawbook. For convenience I will discuss these changes under three headings: (1) Changes affecting players (2) Changes affecting Directors (3) Changes affecting bridge administrators Part One - Changes affecting players A small but significant change has been made to Law 7C: C. Returning Cards to Board After play has finished, each player _should shuffle his original thirteen cards_, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. This is to reduce unauthorized information, since if a hand is not shuffled before returned to the pocket the next player to hold those cards may be able to make an informed guess as to what the previous contract was, which may help that next player to plan their own auction. There has been a "nicer to novices" change to Law 9B1(a): B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity 1. (a) The Director _should_ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. In 1997 the strongest word "must" was used instead. So now experts can be kind to beginners and simply say, "Don't worry about it," when a beginner is feeling very guilty and embarrassed about their unintentional infraction of Law. The key Law on authorized and unauthorized information, Law 16, has been completely rewritten. If there is only on Law in the Lawbook that a player chooses to read, it should be this one. LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION A. Players' Use of Information 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or (b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. 2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations. 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous). 4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C. B. Extraneous Information from Partner 1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (b) A logical alternative action is one that, among 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 judged some might select it. 2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. 2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made: (a) adjust the players' positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or (b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants; or (c) allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or (d) award an artificial adjusted score. 3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the Director proceeds as in 2(c). D. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide: 1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. 2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non- offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. ** it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. For many years the United States has been using the term "convention card", but Australia has been using the more accurate term "system card". The US of A has now finally caught up with us Aussie sophisticates, so now "system card" is the official term used in the Laws. The use of system cards has also been clarified in the new Law 40B2: 2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods. It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method). (b) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card after the auction period commences until the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period. (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent's system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. (d) The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. Another significant change affecting players is the new Law 75 Introduction and consequential Law 75A: LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. This now makes clear that if a player has forgotten their own system, but are reminded of what their system is by an explanation by partner, that player is doooooooooomed. The player must continue kamikaze bidding on the basis of their original misunderstanding of the system. In a worst case scenario, a player may be reminded by pard's explanation that systemically 7S should be bid (scoring +2210), but Law 75A requires them to knowingly misbid to Seven No Trumps Redoubled Minus Thirteen for Minus Seven Thousand Six Hundred! Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Oct 16 06:08:24 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:08:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000101c80f8d$27932820$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c80f8d$27932820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710152108j7555604ch7521f0666e7fcac1@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > > > 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to correct partner's explanation. > > It does no such thing! > > What this law essentially says is that if a player notices an incorrect > explanation given by his partner then he must do "so and so". This is not > imposing any duty to (carefully) monitor everything partner says. > > Sven > Wow! I had no idea that an ethical player would do that. Is this right to ignore everything partner says so you can avoid director calls---is this right generally incorporated into MS? Is this part of what David Burn has been trying to say? Why isn't this concept extended to exposed cards?: You would just say, "It may have been exposed, but I never look over there," and poof, no exposed card. I wonder why the exposed-card wording is more like "could have seen" rather than "did see". Similarly, if your partner huddles but you say "I noticed nothing unusual"---are you always unconstrained? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 06:28:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:28:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Meet Your Colleagues - Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: For your information, attached is an article which is about to appear in the Aussie Department of Immigration staff newsletter. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Meet Your Colleagues - Richard Hills When DIAC staff attend a training course in the National Training Suite, their first sight will be the cheery faces of Craig Angus and Richard Hills, the Training Suite managers. However, Richard Hills is ubiquitous around National Office, as he also in his copious spare time undertakes a number of voluntary roles for DIAC staff. Since the formation of National Training Branch he has been its CPSU Workplace Delegate, assisting many staff in and out of the branch who have had problems and difficulties with their conditions of service. Richard has also been a Health and Safety Representative in DIAC for many years, and was a key player in campaigning for the zebra crossing which now connects the old Benjamin Offices with the New Building. But the role in which most DIAC staff know Richard is that of seller of discounted Hoyts movie tickets on behalf of the NatO/ACTRO Social Club. This year Richard has stepped up his activism on behalf of the Social Club. In his copious spare time he has taken on the boring but necessary task of its Minutes Secretary, plus becoming Co-Chair (with Tony Rumble) of the Social Club's Film Festival sub-committee. After a few teething problems, the NatO/ACTRO Film Festival culminated in a highly successful premiere screening of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". 449 staff (and their families and friends) attended, necessitating the hiring of the two largest cinemas of Hoyts Belconnen. But, unbeknownst to almost everyone in DIAC, Richard has in his copious spare time been working on a special project for more than a year. Grattan Endicott (Secretary of the Laws Committee of the World Bridge Federation) invited Richard to be his amicus curiae for the decennial redrafting of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Thanks to Richard's analytical and proof-reading skills, Richard took upon primary responsibility for the formatting, the version control and the indexing of the multifarious drafts and redrafts of the Laws. In Richard's copious spare time he also submitted many and varied ideas on how the Laws of Duplicate Bridge could be improved, some of which were adopted. In Richard's copious spare time he also likes playing bridge, playing multi-player strategy boardgames, reading books, and visiting the ANU Film Group in the company of his friend Edna Dundas (a recently retired CPSU fellow traveller in DIAC). Richard used to be Chess Champion of Tasmania and Canberra, but for some strange reason he lacks the time to play chess nowadays. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Oct 16 23:36:32 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:36:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Meet Your Colleagues - Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071016143510.0cc8f958@mail.optusnet.com.au> > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC >02 6225 6776 cut >fellow traveller in DIAC). Richard used to be Chess Champion of Tasmania >and Canberra, but for some strange reason he lacks the time to play chess >nowadays. > I suppose there is no such thing as a chess laws mailing list? Tony (Sydney) >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other >than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and >has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 08:07:43 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:07:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card Message-ID: <006d01c80fba$fb734b70$dca087d9@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 +=+ Hi all, I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - mentally exhausted after the gruelling sessions of the drafting committee and the post-session laying out of the many small adjustments (and several major changes) in the drafts as they had been on arrival in Shanghai.Be that as it may we failed to pick up failure of Law 40B2(c) as typeset to transcribe accurately the draft passed to Anna. My apologies; I am asking her to amend this law in the subclause concerned to read: "(i) prior to the commencement of the auction" and continue from there. The word 'period' must be excised. Needing something to occupy my time on the plane home I browsed through some papers I had brought away from the hotel with me - and noticed this. For commencement of the auction see 'Auction' in the definitions; the auction lies within the auction period but they are not conterminous (co-extensive). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 08:10:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:10:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chess laws mailing list [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071016143510.0cc8f958@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: I suppose there is no such thing as a chess laws mailing list? Tony (Sydney) http://forum.fide.com/ 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 Tue Oct 16 08:27:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:27:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000101c80f8d$27932820$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710152108j7555604ch7521f0666e7fcac1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009b01c80fbf$2db647f0$dca087d9@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: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > On 10/15/07, Sven Pran wrote: >> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >> > >> > 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to >> > correct partner's explanation. >> +=+ Hmmm.... I am under the impression that a player's prime duty under the laws is to follow suit? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 08:52:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:52:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47145FB0.8020502@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > It is a fundamental principle of this game that our opponents are > entitled to know everything that we know from partnership > understanding or experience, and that they are not entitled to know > (or more precisely, to be told) what we have in our hands. yes it is fundamental, but not the most fundamental. Look at L75D2 as an example. There, the lawmakers have written into law that you are OBLIGED to leave MI be, in order not to give UI. I cannot fathom how completely honest bridge players can understand that they are to remain completely silent about blatant mistakes told by partner, but that they think their prime duty is to correctly misexplain partner's next bid. When partner explains your asking for minors as Blackwood, that is a huge misexplanation, yet the laws instruct you to be silent about it. When he then bids 5Di because he has one ace, you think it is wrong to not say that in your system 5Di shows diamonds. And you defend that with words like "fundamental duty". I give up (for now). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 08:58:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:58:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004501c80f8f$ec390940$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be><4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> <004501c80f8f$ec390940$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <4714611C.1090708@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > What Law allows MI for the greater good? Please cite any Law that states > that you may provide the opponents with intentional MI under any > circumstances. > L75D2. When you choose to remain silent, you "provide" the opponents with MI. And you do so intentionally. Your partner can be excused, because he told them what he thought was right. Your "infraction" is more severe, because you know the correct information. This is very strong "giving" of MI. And it is what the laws proscribe, because the lawmakers believe that handing out UI to your partner is an even worse crime. I really get frustrated that people can so easily overlook this. And for those who believe that keeping silent is less of a lie than speaking an untruth I have nothing but contempt. It's the actions of a cheat and a coward, and I would not for one moment hesitate in ruling strongly against such silence, if it were not for a law that explicitely tells them to. After all, when L75D2 stops being of application, say after the third pass, the ban on presumed dummy and declarer about speaking out is lifted. I (and many TD's) will be much harder on pairs that keep silent now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Oct 16 09:06:12 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:06:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471462E4.1020209@t-online.de> Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > On 10/15/07, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to >> give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not >> expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as >> you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that). >> If partner is ethical, what is the problem?? >> > > This thinking, though often heard on BLML, is too simplistic: What do > you do if your partner incorrectly explained your agreements and is > now on lead? I hold my trap shut, because that is what the laws say. I am not allowed to correct MI before play ends if I am a defender. WTP? > Do you correct his explanation so there is no MI? Or > are you silent to avoid giving him UI? The law here is designed to > allow MI for the greater good (in this case) of avoiding UI. > > It is a clear fallacy to think that MI is always more horrible than UI. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 08:38:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws References: <200710122326.QAA13512@mailhub.irvine.com> <07628D00-7D0F-4D00-B8F9-2BDD1A5B9B0A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00c401c80fc3$6ace3f40$dca087d9@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: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws > On Oct 12, 2007, at 7:26 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Sven wrote: >> >>> A valued feature of the present laws is that the footnotes are all >>> numbered >>> (consecutively from 1 through 25) enabling easy identification of and >>> reference to a particular footnote. >> >> I'm not sure this is universally so even in the present Laws. I seem >> to recall that a number of years ago, in a discussion on BLML about >> something, I referred to "footnote 22" or something; and some other >> BLMLer (perhaps David Stevenson) had no idea what I was talking about, >> since the version of the Laws they were using didn't have numbered >> footnotes, but instead had the footnotes right below the Law that >> referred to them, like the PDF of the new Laws on ecatsbridge.com >> does. > > As does my ACBL-published copy of the 1997 laws (original hardbound > edition). I don't think I've ever seen a version of the laws that > had numbered footnotes; sounds like a rather good idea. > +=+ It will be recognized that in the drafting we did not know how many footnotes there would be or where they would come and go. There is nothing to stop anyone converting the laws into book form from entering numbers in place of the asterisks, provided they do it accurately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 08:45:36 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0710131048w215754d3gc0af2105fd764106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c501c80fc3$6bd946a0$dca087d9@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: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS >> >> When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or >> regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds >> as follows: >> >> A. Director's Assessment >> >> 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view >> on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance >> with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. >> > ... > > On 10/12/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > ... >> A second big advantage of Law 85A1 is that it refutes >> a common misconception by some pacifist Directors that if the >> facts are disputed, then one should automatically believe the >> putative offending side and rule that no infraction has >> occurred. > > Does it really do that? I am thinking that a pacifist has no trouble > asking the putative offending side a question and believing that > evidence. I wonder if some other BLMLers really think that this > version of Law 85A1 will make for less of this kind of director > pacifism. > +=+ This was a technicality. The lawyers argued that the 1997 Laws established no basis, no standard, on which the Director is to assess evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 09:26:27 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:26:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf References: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801DA6ADFD@garfield.ecats.co.uk><4711175F.20606@ripe.net> <47113531.9050805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <00e001c80fc6$7d772280$dca087d9@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: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Messages from wbf > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> Anna Gudge wrote: >> >>> Please could you release any messages that come in from a WBF computer >>> signed Grattan Endicott - they are concerning the new Laws and need >>> release ! > > I just checked and didn't see any mails from Grattan on a WBF machine. > > If they weren't sent from Grattan's regular account but from some > other account, this is good: mail by non subscribers is discarded > automatically. To post them, subscribe from the account in Shanghai. > > Henk > +=+ I recall that one of them mentioned that, for the most part, the DSC had decided not to include a definition in the Definitions if it was present in a Law. They said that the Index would guide Directors to it. I think we may have broken with the principle in one place. But I can't think where. That message was fairly long so no doubt there was something else in it but I do not recall what it was. The second message concerned Law 69B2; I will put my thoughts together again and compose a fresh message on this. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 09:26:27 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:26:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf References: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801DA6ADFD@garfield.ecats.co.uk><4711175F.20606@ripe.net> <47113531.9050805@ripe.net> Message-ID: <00e001c80fc6$7d772280$dca087d9@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: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Messages from wbf > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> Anna Gudge wrote: >> >>> Please could you release any messages that come in from a WBF computer >>> signed Grattan Endicott - they are concerning the new Laws and need >>> release ! > > I just checked and didn't see any mails from Grattan on a WBF machine. > > If they weren't sent from Grattan's regular account but from some > other account, this is good: mail by non subscribers is discarded > automatically. To post them, subscribe from the account in Shanghai. > > Henk > +=+ I recall that one of them mentioned that, for the most part, the DSC had decided not to include a definition in the Definitions if it was present in a Law. They said that the Index would guide Directors to it. I think we may have broken with the principle in one place. But I can't think where. That message was fairly long so no doubt there was something else in it but I do not recall what it was. The second message concerned Law 69B2; I will put my thoughts together again and compose a fresh message on this. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 09:29:35 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00e101c80fc6$7e8e37d0$dca087d9@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, October 12, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag: > > First you get down on your knees, > Fiddle with your rosaries, > Bow your head with great respect, > And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect! > > Do whatever steps you want if > You have cleared them with the Pontiff, > > [snip] > > Index to the 2007 Laws compiled by Richard Hills and > based on original work on the 1997 Laws by Rick Assad. > > Richard Hills: > > Gut yontiff, Pontiff. > > Pope Benedict XVI may (perhaps) think that he is the > most important living Catholic, but he is merely the > most senior living Catholic. The most important > living Catholic is an obscure person who is so very > obscure that I do not know who that person is. > > Likewise, many of the Great and the Good on blml do > not have their names immortalised in the new Lawbook. > But a man who does have his name immortalised is a > man who is so obscure that his name has never once > before appeared in a blml posting. > > Rick Assad is an EBU Director who noticed that the > official Index to the 1997 Lawbook was juju-flop > useless. Rather than merely moaning and complaining, > Rick decided to do something about it, so he created > a comprehensive new 1997 Index intelligently cross- > reference by Law number (rather than stupidly cross- > referenced by page number). > > Because Rick's 1997 Index was so comprehensive, I was > easily able to erect the 2007 Index on its sturdy > foundations, rather than me having to create a less > comprehensive Index from scratch. > +=+ I believe Rick Assad is young. He attended a seminar for club directors run by the EBU. John Pain drew my attention to Rick's solution when reprinting the Law Book led to changes of page numbers on which some laws were laid out. Helpful enthusiasm on his part - and I seized upon the thought that the Drafting Ciommittee might take advantage of his detailed work - giving it wider recognition than it might otherwise have obtained. Poor Richard has had to keep making changes in the references as we switched items from place to place. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 09:29:35 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00e101c80fc6$7e8e37d0$dca087d9@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, October 12, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag: > > First you get down on your knees, > Fiddle with your rosaries, > Bow your head with great respect, > And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect! > > Do whatever steps you want if > You have cleared them with the Pontiff, > > [snip] > > Index to the 2007 Laws compiled by Richard Hills and > based on original work on the 1997 Laws by Rick Assad. > > Richard Hills: > > Gut yontiff, Pontiff. > > Pope Benedict XVI may (perhaps) think that he is the > most important living Catholic, but he is merely the > most senior living Catholic. The most important > living Catholic is an obscure person who is so very > obscure that I do not know who that person is. > > Likewise, many of the Great and the Good on blml do > not have their names immortalised in the new Lawbook. > But a man who does have his name immortalised is a > man who is so obscure that his name has never once > before appeared in a blml posting. > > Rick Assad is an EBU Director who noticed that the > official Index to the 1997 Lawbook was juju-flop > useless. Rather than merely moaning and complaining, > Rick decided to do something about it, so he created > a comprehensive new 1997 Index intelligently cross- > reference by Law number (rather than stupidly cross- > referenced by page number). > > Because Rick's 1997 Index was so comprehensive, I was > easily able to erect the 2007 Index on its sturdy > foundations, rather than me having to create a less > comprehensive Index from scratch. > +=+ I believe Rick Assad is young. He attended a seminar for club directors run by the EBU. John Pain drew my attention to Rick's solution when reprinting the Law Book led to changes of page numbers on which some laws were laid out. Helpful enthusiasm on his part - and I seized upon the thought that the Drafting Ciommittee might take advantage of his detailed work - giving it wider recognition than it might otherwise have obtained. Poor Richard has had to keep making changes in the references as we switched items from place to place. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 09:44:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:44:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <009b01c80fbf$2db647f0$dca087d9@Hellen> References: <000101c80f8d$27932820$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710152108j7555604ch7521f0666e7fcac1@mail.gmail.com> <009b01c80fbf$2db647f0$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <47146BC8.4090707@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "Progress is not an accident but > a necessity." > {Herbert Spencer} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> On 10/15/07, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >>>> >>>> 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to >>>> correct partner's explanation. > +=+ Hmmm.... I am under the impression that a player's > prime duty under the laws is to follow suit? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Thank you Grattan, maybe this helps see people sense. There are a lot of duties in bridge, and just saying that something is obviously the prime duty does not make it that. BTW, I thought the prime duty was to know the ace is higher than the king, not lower than the two. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 09:46:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:46:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471462E4.1020209@t-online.de> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> <471462E4.1020209@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47146C55.4030401@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Jerry Fusselman schrieb: >> On 10/15/07, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to >>> give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not >>> expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as >>> you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that). >>> If partner is ethical, what is the problem?? >>> >> This thinking, though often heard on BLML, is too simplistic: What do >> you do if your partner incorrectly explained your agreements and is >> now on lead? > > I hold my trap shut, because that is what the laws say. I am not allowed > to correct MI before play ends if I am a defender. WTP? > WTP? TP is that you find this normal, but it is not. You say that not giving MI is the prime duty, yet you happily keep quiet because some law tells you to. And then 2 minutes later, when that same law still applies, you say that you will avoid giving MI because that is the prime duty! And you don't even for a moment flinch at the inconsistency of it all! That's the Problem! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 10:08:18 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:08:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown References: <19E04331-8DEA-4A35-B5F5-A94E0210902E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <010a01c80fd1$359de1a0$dca087d9@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: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown >> >> >> The new Law 83 now has the criterion "... review ... >> **could well** be in order" to discourage the TD from >> advising offending sides to appeal when the TD has the >> strong belief that an appeal is unnecessary. This >> change was inserted because Edgar Kaplan's Reign of >> Terror has been superseded by the current policy that >> a Director should strive to produce a sensible ruling >> immediately. > > Ouch! The new L83, even more readily than the old one, can (and > presumably will) be cited in justification of a TD's failing to tell > players they have the right to appeal a ruling on no more grounds > than his conviction that he made the right ruling. Has anyone ever > gotten a ruling from a TD who thought he was giving a wrong one? TDs > should be encouraged to educate players about their rights, not > discouraged from doing so based on their own presumed infallibility. > We appear to have weakened a law that arguably needed strengthening. > +=+ The DSC intended to reduce substantially the number of occasions when the Director would feel obliged to inform players of their right to appeal. They did not wish Directors to seem to stimulate appeals that would probably stand little chance of succeeding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 10:43:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:43:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@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: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> 3. I am not convinced that changing "convention" to "artificial call" is >> a big step forward. The definition of "artificial call:" >> a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being >> information taken for granted by players generally) other than >> willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a >> pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it >> promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. >> seems to make an ordinary "nothing to say" pass into an artificial call, >> at least if the pass occurs after at least one bid. > > I don't think it does, although I can see how the word order is a bit > problematic and could lead to misinterpretation. First, I'd assume > that the parenthesized phrase applies to passes as well as to bids, > doubles, and redoubles---I cannot imagine that it wouldn't apply, even > though its placement in the Law may make it seem that it doesn't. So > if players generally would see a certain pass as meaning "nothing to > say", then it's not artificial. Second, since a "nothing to say" pass > would not promise any values or any strength, the only way you could > see this as artificial is if it "denies values other than in the last > suit named"; is your thinking here that if a pass denies "general > values", rather than specifically denying values in the last suit > named, then that makes it artificial? If so, then there are probably > some words missing from the definition. Maybe it was intended to mean > something like "promises or denies values IN A SUIT other than the > last suit named", but I don't know exactly what the authors had in > mind. > +=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai. 'Convention(al)' is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in 2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it is for them to define it. So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one (a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA does not include in the (a) category. By design we have extended considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system it will regulate. One other thing: it will be noted that the name of the game has changed. It is 'Duplicate Bridge', not 'Duplicate Contract Bridge'. In the DSC John Wignall's suggestion to do this divided the committee; however, when the question came before the WBF Executive Council the vote for change was overwhelming. See the Title of the Laws, the Introduction, and Law 1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 10:43:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:43:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@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: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> 3. I am not convinced that changing "convention" to "artificial call" is >> a big step forward. The definition of "artificial call:" >> a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being >> information taken for granted by players generally) other than >> willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a >> pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it >> promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. >> seems to make an ordinary "nothing to say" pass into an artificial call, >> at least if the pass occurs after at least one bid. > > I don't think it does, although I can see how the word order is a bit > problematic and could lead to misinterpretation. First, I'd assume > that the parenthesized phrase applies to passes as well as to bids, > doubles, and redoubles---I cannot imagine that it wouldn't apply, even > though its placement in the Law may make it seem that it doesn't. So > if players generally would see a certain pass as meaning "nothing to > say", then it's not artificial. Second, since a "nothing to say" pass > would not promise any values or any strength, the only way you could > see this as artificial is if it "denies values other than in the last > suit named"; is your thinking here that if a pass denies "general > values", rather than specifically denying values in the last suit > named, then that makes it artificial? If so, then there are probably > some words missing from the definition. Maybe it was intended to mean > something like "promises or denies values IN A SUIT other than the > last suit named", but I don't know exactly what the authors had in > mind. > +=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai. 'Convention(al)' is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in 2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it is for them to define it. So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one (a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA does not include in the (a) category. By design we have extended considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system it will regulate. One other thing: it will be noted that the name of the game has changed. It is 'Duplicate Bridge', not 'Duplicate Contract Bridge'. In the DSC John Wignall's suggestion to do this divided the committee; however, when the question came before the WBF Executive Council the vote for change was overwhelming. See the Title of the Laws, the Introduction, and Law 1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 11:22:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:22:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09fb01c80f78$851cabc0$f6c49851@stefanie> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <09fb01c80f78$851cabc0$f6c49851@stefanie> Message-ID: <471482D7.1090802@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Clearly the whole thing is absurd, as 99.999% of the world is aware. Clearly, obviously, of course. So many good arguments! > Why, > then, are people continuing to argue against it? It has been done many times > before, and the only effect is to lend credence to the notion. In fact, the > dWS may gain converts if it is continually allowed airtime. Why not just > ignore it, people? > Yes Stephanie, I wish that was what I had done, ten years ago, when David and David called my honest opinion in question. Just ignored it for the absurdity it was. Blatant, premeditated, deliberate giving of UI. Absurd to even react to it. 99.99% of the world is aware of that. The arrogance of some people. One man (and quite a few adherents by now) speaks out for 10 years, arguments at the ready, and the most common rebuttal is "obviously that is absurd". A few people keep up that monotonic litany, but that is a majority. And then they write: 99.99% of the world is aware that this is absurd. It defies belief. I hope that in five years' time, when the WBF endorses the dWS and adds that it was their intention all along, I will be able to resist gloating. You should all take a good look at the way you have dealt with this issue, and see if you have written anything else than "it's true because we believe it is.". > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 11:08:48 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:08:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@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, October 12, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > "Countdown" was an Aussie popular music television show, > running from 1974 to 1987, hosted by Ian "Molly" Meldrum, > and featuring music clips and interviews with most of the > major stars of that time. > > According to urban myth, on one occasion a viewer rang in > to complain when she noticed that Molly Meldrum's leg was > obscuring the first "o" in a "Countdown" banner. > > LAW 92 - RIGHT TO APPEAL > > A. Contestant's Right > > A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of > any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such > appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a > sanction imposed by regulation. > > B. 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 Tournament Organizer > has specified a different time period. > > C. How to Appeal > > All appeals shall be made through the Director. > > D. Concurrence of Appellants > > An appeal shall not be heard unless > > 1. in a pairs event both members of the partnership > concur in making the appeal (but in an individual contest > an appellant does not require his partner?s concurrence). > > 2. in a team event the team captain concurs in making the > appeal. > > Richard Hills: > > There are two significant changes to Law 92. > > One is that the concept of "sponsoring organization" has > been removed from the Lawbook, replaced by the two new > concepts of "Regulating Authority" and "Tournament > Organizer". > > The second is that Law 92D not only has been clarified, > but also has been changed. > > New Orleans 1995 Appeals Casebook, Case Six: > > [snip] > >>The Committee also discovered that North failed to >>appear at the hearing because he did not concur with >>South's appeal > > [snip] > >>Granovetter: This was a good decision. A special award >>should be given to North for not showing up. Again, this >>kind of clear case should somehow be decided on the >>playing area and not waste everyone's time. > > Richard Hills: > > So, after a dozen years, Matthew Granovetter's wish has > finally been granted, since "An absent member shall be > deemed to concur" has been deleted from Law 92D. > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 11:08:48 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:08:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@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, October 12, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > "Countdown" was an Aussie popular music television show, > running from 1974 to 1987, hosted by Ian "Molly" Meldrum, > and featuring music clips and interviews with most of the > major stars of that time. > > According to urban myth, on one occasion a viewer rang in > to complain when she noticed that Molly Meldrum's leg was > obscuring the first "o" in a "Countdown" banner. > > LAW 92 - RIGHT TO APPEAL > > A. Contestant's Right > > A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of > any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such > appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a > sanction imposed by regulation. > > B. 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 Tournament Organizer > has specified a different time period. > > C. How to Appeal > > All appeals shall be made through the Director. > > D. Concurrence of Appellants > > An appeal shall not be heard unless > > 1. in a pairs event both members of the partnership > concur in making the appeal (but in an individual contest > an appellant does not require his partner?s concurrence). > > 2. in a team event the team captain concurs in making the > appeal. > > Richard Hills: > > There are two significant changes to Law 92. > > One is that the concept of "sponsoring organization" has > been removed from the Lawbook, replaced by the two new > concepts of "Regulating Authority" and "Tournament > Organizer". > > The second is that Law 92D not only has been clarified, > but also has been changed. > > New Orleans 1995 Appeals Casebook, Case Six: > > [snip] > >>The Committee also discovered that North failed to >>appear at the hearing because he did not concur with >>South's appeal > > [snip] > >>Granovetter: This was a good decision. A special award >>should be given to North for not showing up. Again, this >>kind of clear case should somehow be decided on the >>playing area and not waste everyone's time. > > Richard Hills: > > So, after a dozen years, Matthew Granovetter's wish has > finally been granted, since "An absent member shall be > deemed to concur" has been deleted from Law 92D. > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 11:39:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:39:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws In-Reply-To: <00c401c80fc3$6ace3f40$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000801c80fd8$765cb980$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > +=+ It will be recognized that in the drafting we did not know > how many footnotes there would be or where they would come > and go. There is nothing to stop anyone converting the laws into > book form from entering numbers in place of the asterisks, > provided they do it accurately. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It would be nice to have some kind of an official guide as to which footnote is assigned which unique reference. This would facilitate communications on the laws between different NBOs. Be aware also that some NBOs might want to add their own footnotes, for instance where the laws contain a clause like "The Regulating Authority may". In previous translations of the laws we have in Norway had a system of using single asterisks for WBF footnotes and double asterisks for footnotes added by the Norwegian NBO. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Tue Oct 16 11:48:03 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:48:03 +0900 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471482D7.1090802@skynet.be> References: <471482D7.1090802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200710160948.AA11054@geller204.nifty.com> Herman, >I hope that in five years' time, when the WBF endorses the dWS and >adds that it was their intention all along, I will be able to resist >gloating. You should all take a good look at the way you have dealt >with this issue, and see if you have written anything else than "it's >true because we believe it is.". Does this mean that you and the rest of the BML community agree to lay this question aside for the next five years, and that we will reopen discussion in October 2012? If so, that would be a welcome pause for reflection. -Bob Herman De Wael wrote: >Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >> Clearly the whole thing is absurd, as 99.999% of the world is aware. > >Clearly, obviously, of course. >So many good arguments! > >> Why, >> then, are people continuing to argue against it? It has been done many times >> before, and the only effect is to lend credence to the notion. In fact, the >> dWS may gain converts if it is continually allowed airtime. Why not just >> ignore it, people? >> > >Yes Stephanie, I wish that was what I had done, ten years ago, when >David and David called my honest opinion in question. Just ignored it >for the absurdity it was. Blatant, premeditated, deliberate giving of >UI. Absurd to even react to it. 99.99% of the world is aware of that. > >The arrogance of some people. One man (and quite a few adherents by >now) speaks out for 10 years, arguments at the ready, and the most >common rebuttal is "obviously that is absurd". A few people keep up >that monotonic litany, but that is a majority. >And then they write: 99.99% of the world is aware that this is absurd. > >It defies belief. >I hope that in five years' time, when the WBF endorses the dWS and >adds that it was their intention all along, I will be able to resist >gloating. You should all take a good look at the way you have dealt >with this issue, and see if you have written anything else than "it's >true because we believe it is.". > >> Cheers >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> > > >-- >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 svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 11:56:38 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:56:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47146C55.4030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > WTP? TP is that you find this normal, but it is not. You say that not > giving MI is the prime duty, yet you happily keep quiet because some > law tells you to. And then 2 minutes later, when that same law still > applies, you say that you will avoid giving MI because that is the > prime duty! > And you don't even for a moment flinch at the inconsistency of it all! > > That's the Problem! I believe the problem, or rather your problem is the apparently complete inability to distinguish between answering a question (under the requirements of Law 75C) and volunteering information that as such will violate the prohibition in Law 75D2. The law texts are not necessarily perfect, but together with tradition, guidance from WBF, education and even common sense I believe the intention of the laws is crystal clear. You remind me of lawyers who use every technicality they can find in civil laws to win cases for their clients rather than to work for common justice. Bridge has always been, and hopefully still is a game for gentlemen (and fair ladies), not for lawyers. Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 16 12:00:16 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:00:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:24:17 +1000 richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > A copy of an article written for the Victorian Bridge > Association's newsletter. > <...> > A small but significant change has been made to Law 7C: > > > C. Returning Cards to Board > After play has finished, each player _should shuffle his > original thirteen cards_, after which he restores them > to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. > Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board > unless a member of each side, or the Director, is > present. > I can only assume that none of the drafting committee has any experience in assisting disabled players. This law needs to be amended, allowing a player to SORT the played hand into suits, rather than shuffle it, if doing so helps the player at the next table overcome physical limitations - make it subject to the TD's approval if you like. 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/20071016/bdf78508/attachment.pgp From Gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 16 12:17:13 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:17:13 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 16/10/2007 07:38:53 GMT Standard Time, grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: +=+ Hmmm.... I am under the impression that a player's prime duty under the laws is to follow suit? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ah, now I know what I have been doing wrong all these years. I thought my prime duty was to ensure I had thirteen cards; I wondered why people were getting impatient with me before the auction. Paul From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Tue Oct 16 12:53:25 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:53:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card References: <006d01c80fba$fb734b70$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <005a01c80fe2$c978c5a0$f4344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Grattan, I think it might be a good idea for you to let the Executive Council know this and try to figure out a way to let all other interested parties as well know this. Hope you had a good flight home.... Doesn't seem like there were any more appeals.... were there? It was an amazing tournament from that point of view.... must be great directors, great players and great appeals committees :). Luv, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:07 AM Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card > > 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 > +=+ Hi all, > I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute > proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - > mentally exhausted after the gruelling sessions of the drafting > committee and the post-session laying out of the many small > adjustments (and several major changes) in the drafts as they > had been on arrival in Shanghai.Be that as it may we failed to > pick up failure of Law 40B2(c) as typeset to transcribe > accurately the draft passed to Anna. My apologies; I am > asking her to amend this law in the subclause concerned to > read: > "(i) prior to the commencement of the auction" > and continue from there. The word 'period' must be excised. > Needing something to occupy my time on the plane home > I browsed through some papers I had brought away from the > hotel with me - and noticed this. For commencement of the > auction see 'Auction' in the definitions; the auction lies within > the auction period but they are not conterminous (co-extensive). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 13:58:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:58:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> WTP? TP is that you find this normal, but it is not. You say that not >> giving MI is the prime duty, yet you happily keep quiet because some >> law tells you to. And then 2 minutes later, when that same law still >> applies, you say that you will avoid giving MI because that is the >> prime duty! >> And you don't even for a moment flinch at the inconsistency of it all! >> >> That's the Problem! > > I believe the problem, or rather your problem is the apparently complete > inability to distinguish between answering a question (under the > requirements of Law 75C) and volunteering information that as such will > violate the prohibition in Law 75D2. > And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! > The law texts are not necessarily perfect, but together with tradition, > guidance from WBF, education and even common sense I believe the intention > of the laws is crystal clear. > Indeed, common sense. The common sense which tells us that "diamond preference" and "4NT was not Blackwood" are the same thing. The common sense to see that this is not a problem which goes away by no longer answering to Herman, as Stephanie suggests. The common sense to see that Herman has a point, and that one should stop trying to prove Herman wrong, but rather go past this hurdle and start asking what the intent of the WBF was in the past, and which way they should go in the future. And the common sense not to think that just because you tell Herman 27 times that something is black, while Herman argues 27 times that it is white, it does not normally follow that it is black. I have been giving reasoned arguments, and all you can say is "no it's black". > You remind me of lawyers who use every technicality they can find in civil > laws to win cases for their clients rather than to work for common justice. > You remind me of a priest who uses not a single technicality but says "it is like that because the Bible says so". Only the bible in this case is nothing more than the words of David Burn and Sven Pran. > Bridge has always been, and hopefully still is a game for gentlemen (and > fair ladies), not for lawyers. > Indeed. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 13:59:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:59:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200710160948.AA11054@geller204.nifty.com> References: <471482D7.1090802@skynet.be> <200710160948.AA11054@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4714A7BF.6000502@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman, > >> I hope that in five years' time, when the WBF endorses the dWS and >> adds that it was their intention all along, I will be able to resist >> gloating. You should all take a good look at the way you have dealt >> with this issue, and see if you have written anything else than "it's >> true because we believe it is.". > > Does this mean that you and the rest of the BML community agree > to lay this question aside for the next five years, and that we will > reopen discussion in October 2012? If so, that would be a welcome > pause for reflection. > No, sadly, the five years is my estimate of the time it will take for this to filter upwards. An estimate I made in 1997, I should add. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 16 14:02:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:02:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence > in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? Better start writing that in the CoC then! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 16 14:28:09 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:28:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c80ff0$03a6a640$0af3f2c0$@com> >I have been giving reasoned arguments, and all you can say is "no it's black" No, you haven't. What you have been doing, over and over again, is quoting "L73B1 and L75D2" as though they were a mantra to ward off evil. You have not responded in any way to the arguments of Hirsch Davis, other than by repeatedly mis-spelling his first name as "Hirsh". You have not responded in any way to the arguments of Brian Meadows and myself, who have repeatedly pointed out to you that because your interpretations of the Laws lead to absurdities, they cannot be correct interpretations. You have not responded in any way to the arguments of Sven Pran, who has repeatedly pointed out to you the difference between transmission and communication. You have, in short, not moved your position one iota from what it has been these past ten years, because you believe that you and only you know the "intent" behind the Law - and even that, you have misunderstood grievously. Herman, my friend, there is simply no reasoning with you on this issue. I don't propose to try it any longer. David Burn London, England From geller at nifty.com Tue Oct 16 14:53:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:53:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4714A7BF.6000502@skynet.be> References: <4714A7BF.6000502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200710161253.AA11055@geller204.nifty.com> I see. You're giving out MI again. :-) -Bob Herman De Wael ????????: >Robert Geller wrote: >> Herman, >> >>> I hope that in five years' time, when the WBF endorses the dWS and >>> adds that it was their intention all along, I will be able to resist >>> gloating. You should all take a good look at the way you have dealt >>> with this issue, and see if you have written anything else than "it's >>> true because we believe it is.". >> >> Does this mean that you and the rest of the BML community agree >> to lay this question aside for the next five years, and that we will >> reopen discussion in October 2012? If so, that would be a welcome >> pause for reflection. >> > >No, sadly, the five years is my estimate of the time it will take for >this to filter upwards. >An estimate I made in 1997, I should add. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Oct 16 14:58:14 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:58:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl><002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be><4713E250.5010204@t-online.de><2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> <47145FB0.8020502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007a01c80ff4$374bcad0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert wrote: >> On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> >> It is a fundamental principle of this game that our opponents are >> entitled to know everything that we know from partnership >> understanding or experience, and that they are not entitled to know >> (or more precisely, to be told) what we have in our hands. > > yes it is fundamental, but not the most fundamental. Look at L75D2 as > an example. There, the lawmakers have written into law that you are > OBLIGED to leave MI be, in order not to give UI. > > I cannot fathom how completely honest bridge players can understand > that they are to remain completely silent about blatant mistakes told > by partner, but that they think their prime duty is to correctly > misexplain partner's next bid. > > When partner explains your asking for minors as Blackwood, that is a > huge misexplanation, yet the laws instruct you to be silent about it. > When he then bids 5Di because he has one ace, you think it is wrong to > not say that in your system 5Di shows diamonds. And you defend that > with words like "fundamental duty". > > I give up (for now). Herman, The fundamental problem seems to be that you cannot fathom that there are certain duties that partner must perform, and certain duties that you must perform. Partner must know your system, and disclose it correctly as required. You cannot do that job for him. If he fails, the wheels come of and you're headed for a poor score. And yes, the law forbids you to correct Partner's MI until the correct time. However, there is a rather large difference between correcting Partner's MI at the time required by Law and providing MI on your own at a time you are required to correctly explain system. Partner's failure to correctly explain was unintentional (assuming that it was Partner and not you that forgot system, in which case Partner's MI may sometimes have woken you up with nobody at the table even knowing you were asleep...what do you do then?). However, the telling point is a previous post you made in this thread: [HdW] No Hirsh, I do not assume that partner does not know his L16 obligations. But I do assume that if I don't give him any UI, the final outcome will be better than if I do give him UI. When I don't give UI, two things may happen: - he may wake up, and we get a reasonable score; or - he stays asleep, and we get the bad score we were heading for But if I do give UI, four things can happen: - he decides it's more ethical to stay asleep, and we get the bad score (please note that this is more likely now than before) - he decides that he has no LA to waking up, and he does, and the TD agrees (we have the same reasonable score, but far less likely) - he decides to wake up, but the TD does not agree, and gives us the bad score we were heading for - he decides to wake up, the TD does not agree, and gives us the worst score he can think of. Both through frequency and through even worse scores from the TD, we end up with a worse score than needed. OK, we need to subtract from the first set the score correction because of the (second) MI. [HD} In other words, you use UI from Partner (his explanation) to decide to create MI in order to gain a possible advantage in the score. Let's see if we can find a few Laws that might be broken by this: L16A: Actually not applicable unless you consider an explanation a bridge action, which it is not. However, you are choosing an explanation based on UI. L40B: You are concealing a partnership understanding L40D: depends on your local regulations L72A1: You are not playing in strict accordance with the Law. L72B2: Your violation is intentional, not inadvertent. L73C: This is probably the biggest one: You are using UI to take an action that you believe is more advantageous to your side. Deliberate use of UI to potentially improve your score? L73E: You are deceiving the opponents about your actual system. L75A: Your agreements are not fully and freely available to the opponents. L75C: You are not disclosing all information available to you through explicit and implicit partnership agreement. L75D1: You are not summoning the TD when you become aware of your own erroneous explanation. You cite L75D2 as justification for this, but in fact it is not applicable, as had been previously explained. You intentionally violate a multitude of Laws to gain a possible advantage in the score. I'll refrain from using the word that normally describes this practice. Despite all of the fatuous legal arguments, it comes down to trying to manipulate the Laws to get an edge in the score when the wheels come off. And with that, I really am out of this thread. Hirsch Davis From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 15:20:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:20:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c80ff7$53b74e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Herman, Don't you read before posting? >From "Preface to the laws of duplicate bridge": This latest revision supersedes the 1997 Code. Zonal authorities may implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th September 2008. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 16. oktober 2007 14:03 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence > > in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. > > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > > > > A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL > will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a > written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? > Better start writing that in the CoC then! > > -- > 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 15:37:07 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003101c80ffb$0bca14a0$8aa887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >> +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence >> in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL > will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a > written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? > Better start writing that in the CoC then! > +=+ I don't know about 2007. In Pau 2008 the 2007 laws will apply. It was agreed that for international tournaments the effective date would be 1st January 2008. At least one Eastern European NBO plans the same date for its domestic events, as I hear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 15:28:55 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card References: <006d01c80fba$fb734b70$dca087d9@Hellen> <005a01c80fe2$c978c5a0$f4344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <003001c80ffb$0a9b3190$8aa887d9@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: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card > Hi Grattan, > > I think it might be a good idea for you to let the Executive Council know > this and try to figure out a way to let all other interested parties as > well > know this. > > Hope you had a good flight home.... Doesn't seem like there were any more > appeals.... were there? It was an amazing tournament from that point of > view.... must be great directors, great players and great appeals > committees > :). > Luv, Joan > +=+ I have it in hand with Anna already. Flight as far as London was excellent. My flight from London to Manchester was delayed because immigration authorities refused to allow someone transferringfrom Helsinki to join the plane and his bag had to be found in the hold. That delay lost us our takeoff slot so we queued behind fifteen or sixteen flights for use of the runway. In turn that meant we had lost our landing slot in Manchester, so we stooged around in a stack for a while. I got to bed in the end almost exactly 24 hours after leaving the hotel in Shanghai. .... special luv... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:07 AM > Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card > > >> >> 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 >> +=+ Hi all, >> I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute >> proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - >> mentally exhausted after the gruelling sessions of the drafting >> committee and the post-session laying out of the many small >> adjustments (and several major changes) in the drafts as they >> had been on arrival in Shanghai.Be that as it may we failed to >> pick up failure of Law 40B2(c) as typeset to transcribe >> accurately the draft passed to Anna. My apologies; I am >> asking her to amend this law in the subclause concerned to >> read: >> "(i) prior to the commencement of the auction" >> and continue from there. The word 'period' must be excised. >> Needing something to occupy my time on the plane home >> I browsed through some papers I had brought away from the >> hotel with me - and noticed this. For commencement of the >> auction see 'Auction' in the definitions; the auction lies within >> the auction period but they are not conterminous (co-extensive). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 16:00:43 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:00:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card References: <006d01c80fba$fb734b70$dca087d9@Hellen> <005a01c80fe2$c978c5a0$f4344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <004d01c80ffd$01559e70$8aa887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card > Hi Grattan, > > I think it might be a good idea for you to let the Executive Council know > this and try to figure out a way to let all other interested parties as > well > know this. > > Hope you had a good flight home.... Doesn't seem like there were any more > appeals.... were there? It was an amazing tournament from that point of > view.... must be great directors, great players and great appeals > committees > :). > Luv, Joan > +=+ I have it in hand with Anna already......... The most important move is to forestall its entry into any translation. The NBOs and Zones are being alerted. Flight as far as London was excellent. My flight from London to Manchester was delayed because immigration authorities refused to allow someone transferring from Helsinki to join the plane and his bag had to be found in the hold. That delay lost us our takeoff slot so we queued behind fifteen or sixteen flights for use of the runway. In turn that meant we had lost our landing slot in Manchester, so we stooged around in a stack for a while. I got to bed in the end almost exactly 24 hours after leaving the hotel in Shanghai. .... special luv... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ PS The total number of appeals in Shanghai was five. With three main events plus 148 teams in the Transnational that is quite remarkable. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:07 AM > Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card > > >> >> 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 >> +=+ Hi all, >> I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute >> proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - >> mentally exhausted after the gruelling sessions of the drafting >> committee and the post-session laying out of the many small >> adjustments (and several major changes) in the drafts as they >> had been on arrival in Shanghai.Be that as it may we failed to >> pick up failure of Law 40B2(c) as typeset to transcribe >> accurately the draft passed to Anna. My apologies; I am >> asking her to amend this law in the subclause concerned to >> read: >> "(i) prior to the commencement of the auction" >> and continue from there. The word 'period' must be excised. >> Needing something to occupy my time on the plane home >> I browsed through some papers I had brought away from the >> hotel with me - and noticed this. For commencement of the >> auction see 'Auction' in the definitions; the auction lies within >> the auction period but they are not conterminous (co-extensive). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 16 16:05:21 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:05:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710151514o445056a1mf3e9ab5a86d07da3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560710151514o445056a1mf3e9ab5a86d07da3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <66889AF0-7271-4D15-8BC8-467A2DAD902C@starpower.net> On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> Case 1: 1S-1C/2C. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to >> open the bidding. A 1C opening shows 2+ clubs and 12+ HCP. A 2C >> overcall of 1S shows 5+ clubs and 12+ HCP. L27C applies. >> >> Case 2: 1S-1H/2H. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to >> open the bidding. A 1H opening shows 5+ hearts and 12+ HCP. A 2H >> overcall of 1S shows 5+ hearts and 10+ HCP. L27D applies. > > I don't follow this. To my mind a 2C overcall does not incorporate > "the information contained in " a 1C opening bid. "Incorporate: To unite with or blend indistinguishably into something already in existence." [AHD] In case 1, you know from partner's 2C overcall that he has 5+ clubs and 12+ HCP. That you know that he holds a 1C opening bid -- promising 2+ clubs and 12+ HCP -- tells you nothing you didn't already know; the knowledge that he has 2+ clubs is "incorporated" in the legitimate information that he holds 5+ clubs. In case 2, in contrast, the 2H overcall shows 10+ HCP, but the knowledge that pard holds a 1H opening bid tells you that he has 12+ HCP, which is information not "incorporated" in the 2H overcall. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Oct 16 16:10:30 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:10:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47146C55.4030401@skynet.be> References: <20071015110648.6477721C873@f28.poczta.interia.pl> <002001c80f2b$32822720$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <471379CB.5040401@skynet.be> <4713E250.5010204@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0710151512g73ffe533rc82dbc144802bfab@mail.gmail.com> <471462E4.1020209@t-online.de> <47146C55.4030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4714C656.5080505@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> >> I hold my trap shut, because that is what the laws say. I am not allowed >> to correct MI before play ends if I am a defender. WTP? >> >> > > WTP? TP is that you find this normal, but it is not. You say that not > giving MI is the prime duty, yet you happily keep quiet because some > law tells you to. Hello? Earth to orbit? Anybody out there? Of course I do what the law says, what else is there? Bridge is a game governed by laws, not by what I think is just, fair, good (you may add any other description that comes to your mind). The law tells me what is right in the game of Bridge, so I follow that law. What else???? I cannot follow the laws of American Football while playing Bridge, nor can I follow my personal set of beliefs how the rules should be. I have to follow the rules as laid out by the body governing those laws. I can spend hours on end discussing whether these laws are IMO "right" or "wrong", but that does not change those rules. In order to change the rules I have to convince the people who make those laws. My "interpretation" of those laws does not change them, nor the way I "choose to read" them. The only thing that counts is how the rule is _meant_ to be read, and if this is in doubt I have to ask for guidance from the governing body. If I don`t like their answer, well, that`s too bad for me, isn`t it? The WBFLC told us in the Code of Practice that giving UI through a correct explanation of the system is not an infraction (and Grattan and Ton, being members of that body told us again...and again), while the use of that UI is, of course, an infraction. Along comes Herman who "chooses to read it differently, and it does not apply, anyway" (paraphrase mine, not an exact quote). This is not a seminar in literary criticism. This is the Laws of Bridge. You may discuss this as long as you want, you may criticize it, you may try to point out ways to do it better, no problem. But you try to get people to break those laws, and that is simply not acceptable. We can always discuss whether a ruke is good or not, but if we are told from people with the authority to tell us (the WBFLC, in case you forgot) how a law is to be read, then all discussion is limited to what the law should look like instead of its present form, if we should happen to disagree with the way we are told to read it.. > And then 2 minutes later, when that same law still > applies, you say that you will avoid giving MI because that is the > prime duty! > Herman, this is too much. Do not put words in my mouth I have not said or written. I have never, ever told anyone what his/her prime duty in the game of Bridge is, because I happen to believe that there isn`t any "prime" duty in Bridge. There are a lot of duties, sometimes there is danger of conflict, sometimes not. By explaining after MI from partner I do not have to choose between UI and MI, I have to choose between following the law and not following it. The WBFLC has told me how to follow the law. If this were a game invented by Herman de Wael I would follow the rules as laid down by Herman, because it is Herman`s game. But I happen to play the WBF`s game, so I follow the rules laid down by them. > And you don't even for a moment flinch at the inconsistency of it all! > Herman, I promise to flinch the very second I see an inconsistency. In explaining my system I commit no infraction, in misexplaining it I do (no, it is not who says so, it is the guys who made the rules). What could be simpler than that. But after this long discussion I fear that you have built a mindset for you about this "problem" which does no longer let you discuss this in an emotionless way. Being a couple of hundred miles away from you, and only having the guidance from your messages I may well be wrong, but I have been wrong before. In fact I would be glad if I were wrong again. It is a valid point of view to think that temporary MI is worse than UI (under the premise that the MI is cleared up at the first legal opportunity, and the UI is not used). I happen to disagree, but that does not make your point of view invalid. It so happens that I, through no design of mine, happen to share the view of the current WBFLC. If you had convinced them we would have switche sides. Maybe you manage to convince them or their successors, the future will tell. But I doubt it. > That's the Problem! > > > From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 00:13:28 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:13:28 +1300 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710151513j51f2a8e4lbf1bbfd29b3a50e1@mail.gmail.com> > > Case 1: 1S-1C/2C. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to > open the bidding. A 1C opening shows 2+ clubs and 12+ HCP. A 2C > overcall of 1S shows 5+ clubs and 12+ HCP. L27C applies. > > Case 2: 1S-1H/2H. Offender thought RHO had passed, and intended to > open the bidding. A 1H opening shows 5+ hearts and 12+ HCP. A 2H > overcall of 1S shows 5+ hearts and 10+ HCP. L27D applies. I don't follow this. To my mind a 2C overcall does not incorporate "the information contained in " a 1C opening bid. Wayne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071016/14c7d970/attachment-0001.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 16 16:49:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:49:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first > undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai. 'Convention(al)' > is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in > 2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide > default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word > in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it > is for them to define it. So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned > partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one > (a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated > to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA > does not include in the (a) category. By design we have extended > considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system > it will regulate. ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, restriction or oversight". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 16 16:58:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:58:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:17 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 16/10/2007 07:38:53 GMT Standard Time, > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: > > +=+ Hmmm.... I am under the impression that a player's > prime duty under the laws is to follow suit? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Ah, now I know what I have been doing wrong all these years. I > thought my > prime duty was to ensure I had thirteen cards; I wondered why > people were > getting impatient with me before the auction. Both wrong! A player's "prime duty" can be found in L74A1. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 16 17:13:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:13:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:00:16 EDT." <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200710161512.IAA25117@mailhub.irvine.com> Brian wrote: > > C. Returning Cards to Board > > After play has finished, each player _should shuffle his > > original thirteen cards_, after which he restores them > > to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. > > Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board > > unless a member of each side, or the Director, is > > present. > >=20 > > I can only assume that none of the drafting committee has any > experience in assisting disabled players. This law needs to be amended, > allowing a player to SORT the played hand into suits, rather than > shuffle it, if doing so helps the player at the next table overcome > physical limitations - make it subject to the TD's approval if you > like. Good point. On the other hand, (1) the Law says "should", which has less force than "shall" or "must"; and (2) normally, from what I've seen, the Director is the one who requests of a player that he sort his hand after each board (to accommodate the next player's limitations), and although there are plenty of nasty characters in bridge, I have not yet seen anyone so insensitive as to refuse the Director's request to do so. I suspect that if any player were to refuse such a request by the Director saying something like "I can't do that because Law 7C says I'm supposed to shuffle the cards", the result would likely be that player getting whacked with duplicate boards by the other three players at the table. Well, I'd do that if I were one of the other players. So I think you're right in theory, but in practice everything's going to be fine. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 16 17:14:30 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:14:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:24:17 +1000." Message-ID: <200710161513.IAA25161@mailhub.irvine.com> > A copy of an article written for the Victorian Bridge > Association's newsletter. > > > Best wishes Richard, were you planning on posting this to rec.games.bridge---or to give permission to someone else to do so? I know there are people asking for a summary of the changes. -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 16 18:56:30 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:56:30 EDT Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Par... Message-ID: In a message dated 16/10/2007 16:14:11 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: >>After play has finished, each player _should shuffle his > > original thirteen cards_, I note it does not say *randomly* shuffle, so that arranging them in order of suits for the ease of play of a disabled player conforms with one of the meanings of shuffle: to ... interchange the positions of (objects). Clearly the intent is that the order in which cards were played is not available to the next player, but also whether a hand was passed out cannot be discerned. It could be argued that they have not been shuffled after a pass-out when the next player is disabled; well ... they can be shuffled and then sorted back into suits by the pedant. Paul From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 16 19:21:17 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:21:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361> In another thread, Herman threw this at Sven: QUOTE BEGIN And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! QUOTE END In the world at large and at the bridge table, *answering a question* is definitely NOT the same as *volunteering information*. Raija From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 16 19:34:47 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:34:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Par... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071016133447.594d6c52@linuxbox> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:56:30 EDT Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 16/10/2007 16:14:11 GMT Standard Time, > adam at irvine.com writes: > > >>After play has finished, each player _should shuffle his > > > original thirteen cards_, > > I note it does not say *randomly* shuffle, so that arranging them in > order of suits for the ease of play of a disabled player conforms > with one of the meanings of shuffle: > > to ... interchange the positions of (objects). > Well, according to my dictionary, we get :- 1: to mix in a mass confusedly : jumble 2: to put or thrust aside or under cover 3a: to rearrange (as playing cards, dominoes, or tiles) to produce a random order 3b: to move about, back and forth, or from one place to another : > Clearly the intent is that the order in which cards were played is > not available to the next player, but also whether a hand was passed > out cannot be discerned. It could be argued that they have not been > shuffled after a pass-out when the next player is disabled; well ... > they can be shuffled and then sorted back into suits by the pedant. > Despite what Adam and yourself say, I feel that it's worth at least a footnote to Law 7C - and as I've already said to Adam, I really don't see why a player shouldn't be at liberty to sort rather than shuffle just from personal preference, provided they don't do something daft like always putting the trumps on the left. 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/20071016/2b9bb18b/attachment.pgp From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 16 19:38:54 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:38:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> References: <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4714F72E.5040208@ntlworld.com> [Brian Meadows] I can only assume that none of the drafting committee has any experience in assisting disabled players. This law needs to be amended, allowing a player to SORT the played hand into suits, rather than shuffle it, if doing so helps the player at the next table overcome physical limitations - make it subject to the TD's approval if you like. [nige1] Good idea Brian! The WBFLC started in the right direction but seems to have failed to think it through. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 20:23:49 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:23:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > In 1997 the strongest word "must" was used instead. So > now experts can be kind to beginners and simply say, > "Don't worry about it," when a beginner is feeling very > guilty and embarrassed about their unintentional > infraction of Law. Okay, but... players still can't make their own rulings at the table. So now what? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 20:29:23 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:29:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> References: <20071016060016.537e48f9@linuxbox> Message-ID: <1D367419-9374-4EC9-A42A-9674DAC70B99@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Brian wrote: > I can only assume that none of the drafting committee has any > experience in assisting disabled players. This law needs to be > amended, > allowing a player to SORT the played hand into suits, rather than > shuffle it, if doing so helps the player at the next table overcome > physical limitations - make it subject to the TD's approval if you > like. We had a disabled player here (although I haven't seen him in a while). He had a vision problem. The TD invariably asked the person who handled what would become the disabled player's hand in the next round to sort it before putting it back in the board. Players are required to follow the directives of the TD - and as a player I would consider this "request" a directive - so I don't see a problem. What, the TD didn't tell you to do that, but either the disabled player or his partner asked you to do it? Do it anyway. Or if you must, call the TD, who will almost surely (a) tell you to do it and (b) wonder, probably out loud, why you're being such a twit. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 20:31:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:31:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00e101c80fc6$7e8e37d0$dca087d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >Poor Richard has had to keep making changes in the >references as we switched items from place to place. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack: No workman without tools, Nor Lawyer without Fools, Can live by their Rules. Richard Hills: Both Eitan Levy and Eric Landau have noticed that while "Convention" was correctly cross-referenced in the main body of the Index, it was incorrectly cross- referenced when listed as a sub-heading under "Partnership understanding". This typo, plus some other minor typos in the main numbered Laws, will be fixed in a second edition of the 2007 Lawbook. Keep an eye on Anna Gudge's ecats website, which will prominently note when the second edition of the 2007 Lawbook is available, and exactly what typos have been fixed. 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 Tue Oct 16 20:39:11 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:39:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c80ff0$03a6a640$0af3f2c0$@com> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> <000001c80ff0$03a6a640$0af3f2c0$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161139g567417d4w9b575b7cbf5e303c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, David Burn wrote: > > You have not > responded in any way to the arguments of Brian Meadows and myself, who have > repeatedly pointed out to you that because your interpretations of the Laws > lead to absurdities, they cannot be correct interpretations. You have not > responded in any way to the arguments of Sven Pran, who has repeatedly > pointed out to you the difference between transmission and communication. Actually, I consider Herman to be probably the best in BLML at answering questions put to him. Granted, he often gives answers one might dislike, but I would put his record of patience in actually answering questions above anyone else's on BLML. In the last few days, he even answered several questions asked of me that I had not yet addressed. I thought his answers were excellent and to the point. I don't wish to criticise, because nobody is required to answer my questions, but I have specifically asked you, David, several questions in two posts in the last few days, and you have offered zero words in response. I have not yet decided on MS vs. dWS, and I have a feeling that your arguments could really help me decide. In addition to my specific questions that are out there, I plan a more fundamental question for you, but I feel that I cannot properly put to you until I figure out your position better---it would probably help me if you could find time to respond to my other questions. (The "more fundamental" question is going to be related to what appears to be your full endorsement of allowing calls and plays that "I was always going to make" when UI is present from partner's surprising answers to questions about alerts.) Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 20:44:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:44:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Messages from wbf [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00e001c80fc6$7d772280$dca087d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I recall that one of them mentioned that, for the most part, the >DSC had decided not to include a definition in the Definitions if it >was present in a Law. They said that the Index would guide Directors >to it. I think we may have broken with the principle in one place. [snip] Richard Hills: In at least two places. ;-) * * * Definitions Odd Trick - each trick to be won by declarer's side in excess of six. Law 18A: A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), * * * Definitions: Sorted deck - a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition. Law 6 footnote: A 'sorted deck' is a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition. * * * Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 20:46:18 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:46:18 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710161146l44772a9en542636aa408095d0@mail.gmail.com> On 17/10/2007, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first > > undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai. 'Convention(al)' > > is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in > > 2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide > > default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word > > in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it > > is for them to define it. So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned > > partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one > > (a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated > > to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA > > does not include in the (a) category. By design we have extended > > considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system > > it will regulate. > > ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading > understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more > along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, > restriction or oversight". > Significantly it appears there has been some consultation or at least communication with National Organizations about these changes. My national organization has been quoting or alluding to these changes for some time. On the other hand there has been no attempt that I am aware of to get feedback on the laws and appropriate changes from ordinary players. Many National Organizations have been abusing their restricted power under the 1997 laws probably for the entire ten years of those laws existence. The punishment, whoops I mean reward for that abuse of power is that they now have "absolute total power with no constraint, restriction or oversight" as Eric points out or that their powers have been "extended considerably" as Grattan would prefer to state. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 20:51:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:51:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200710161513.IAA25161@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >Richard, were you planning on posting this to rec.games.bridge---or >to give permission to someone else to do so? I know there are >people asking for a summary of the changes. Richard Hills: I am happy for Adam or anyone else to post this to rec.games.bridge, provided that "Unofficial" is retained in the title of the posting. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 16 20:56:08 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:56:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> <002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net> On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:21 PM, raija wrote: > In another thread, Herman threw this at Sven: > > QUOTE BEGIN > And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that > answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! > QUOTE END > > In the world at large and at the bridge table, *answering a > question* is > definitely NOT the same as *volunteering information*. Apparently Herman has never been in court. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 21:04:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:04:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau >Both wrong! A player's "prime duty" can be found in L74A1. Richard Hills Yes, that is the first and greatest commandment. And a second is like it. Law 74A2 A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. 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 Tue Oct 16 21:12:24 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:12:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> <002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361> <179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:21 PM, raija wrote: > > > In another thread, Herman threw this at Sven: > > > > QUOTE BEGIN > > And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that > > answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! > > QUOTE END > > > > In the world at large and at the bridge table, *answering a > > question* is > > definitely NOT the same as *volunteering information*. > > Apparently Herman has never been in court. > Not sure the arcane proceedings of a court has much relevance to this discussion. I would compare Sven's assertion more how some say, "Yes, I knowingly allowed you believe a complete falsehood (to your detriment), but I did not actually lie to you." That strikes me as hollow ethics at best. I wonder if you, like Sven, also tend not to listen to partner's explanations and rarely need to correct anything because you intentionally weren't listening. It sounds like a convenient way to play, but it currently seems unethical to me. I think David called not hearing partner a desirable fiction, but Sven calls it a desirable reality. It sounds like you agree with Sven, but perhaps David does not. My guess is that very few in this forum would support Sven on this particular issue, but I could be wrong. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 21:14:54 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:14:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > By design we have extended > > considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system > > it will regulate. > > ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading > understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more > along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, > restriction or oversight". > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 21:29:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:29:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003001c80ffb$0a9b3190$8aa887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> > "(i) prior to the commencement of the auction" >and continue from there. The word 'period' must be excised. > Needing something to occupy my time on the plane home >I browsed through some papers I had brought away from the >hotel with me - and noticed this. For commencement of the >auction see 'Auction' in the definitions; the auction lies within >the auction period but they are not conterminous (co-extensive). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Definitions -> Auction - 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). Incorrect first edition Law 40B2(c)(i) -> (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent?s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction period, Correct second edition Law 40B2(c)(i) -> (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent?s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, Richard Hills: This was a comedy of errors, caused by me being _too efficient_ in my proof-reading. The correct second edition Law 40B2(c)(i) was sent to me for transcription a day _before_ the definition of Auction had the phrase "It begins when the first call is made" inserted. Ergo, since the start of the auction period was defined (Law 17A) but the differing start of the auction had not yet been defined, I corrected what I erroneously thought was a typo by changing "auction" to "auction period". Whenever I corrected a typo in a Law, I included a note stating what typo I was correcting in the same email which had the Law as its attachment, just in case I had made a mistake. Unfortunately Grattan was >totally whacked - mentally exhausted after the gruelling sessions >of the drafting committee and the post-session laying out of the >many small adjustments (and several major changes) in the drafts >as they had been on arrival in Shanghai so did not have time to read my emails, instead merely reading just the Law printouts. C'est la vie. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 16 22:11:15 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:11:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be><002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361><179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00bc01c81030$b50ecda0$20195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information > On 10/16/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:21 PM, raija wrote: >> >> > In another thread, Herman threw this at Sven: >> > >> > QUOTE BEGIN >> > And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that >> > answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! >> > QUOTE END >> > >> > In the world at large and at the bridge table, *answering a >> > question* is >> > definitely NOT the same as *volunteering information*. >> >> Apparently Herman has never been in court. >> > > Not sure the arcane proceedings of a court has much relevance to this > discussion. I would compare Sven's assertion more how some say, "Yes, > I knowingly allowed you believe a complete falsehood (to your > detriment), but I did not actually lie to you." That strikes me as > hollow ethics at best. > > I wonder if you, like Sven, also tend not to listen to partner's > explanations and rarely need to correct anything because you > intentionally weren't listening. It sounds like a convenient way to > play, but it currently seems unethical to me. > > I think David called not hearing partner a desirable fiction, but Sven > calls it a desirable reality. It sounds like you agree with Sven, > but perhaps David does not. My guess is that very few in this forum > would support Sven on this particular issue, but I could be wrong. > > Jerry Fusselman --------------------------- My comment was not related to what Sven believes or Herman believes or David believes or Jerry believes. Or who agrees with whom. My comment was to something that Herman said to Sven. Let me quote here again what Herman said to Sven, and express my opinion that *answering a question* is NOT the same as *volunteering information*. QUOTE BEGIN And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! QUOTE END Cheers, Raija From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 22:20:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:20:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>I think David called not hearing partner a desirable fiction, >>but Sven calls it a desirable reality. LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS A. Call Not Clearly Recognized A player may require clarification forthwith if he is in doubt what call has been made. B. Review of Auction during Auction Period During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated* when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed. C. Review after Final Pass 1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41). 2. Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review. D. Who May Review the Auction A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an opponent. E. Correction of Error in Review All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage). F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained. 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. 4. If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. 'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to him by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E. G. Incorrect Procedure 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. 2. Except as the Regulating Authority allows a player may not consult his own system card and notes during the auction and play periods. * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn. Richard Hills (prior posting): >I am joining David Stevenson in gafiating from blml, to recharge >my batteries. However, unlike David's unnecessarily extended >gafiation (come back soon David - can you be tempted now a less >ambiguous Lawbook has been published?), I will be absent for >only a week, intending to return to this thread on Monday 22nd >October 2007. Richard Hills (Wednesday 17th October 2007): My batteries are only partially recharged, so I lack the power to fly through the blizzard of emails which will be snowstormed if I choose to discuss Herman De Wael's favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). Instead I will discuss its less controversial sister, Law 20F4. But first, clearing away the underbrush, David Burn is clearly correct when he states that not hearing partner is a desirable fiction. See my discussion of Law 75A and "Minus Seven Thousand Six Hundred!" in the parallel "Executive Summary..." thread. The key issue is whether not hearing partner is a desirable **reality**. That is, which of these three interpretations of Law 20F4 be adopted? Interpretation X: If a player subsequently realizes (unless that realization was caused by unauthorized information from partner) that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4 or Interpretation Y: If a player subsequently realizes (whether or not that realization was caused by unauthorized information from partner) that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. Note: If the realization was in fact caused by unauthorized information from partner, the player must explain their system correctly, but still call in accordance with their original erroneous belief (see Law 75A). The fact that that player's calls are restricted by Law 75A is unauthorized information to their partner, but authorized information to their opponents. or Interpretation Z: None of the above. For what it is worth, my preferred selection is Interpretation Y, but I believe that Grattan Endicott may be a supporter of Sven Pran in instead selecting Interpretation X. 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 Tue Oct 16 22:43:17 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:43:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <00bc01c81030$b50ecda0$20195e47@DFYXB361> References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be> <002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361> <179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> <00bc01c81030$b50ecda0$20195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161343s4c466bbq3300b92f345cccaf@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, raija wrote: > > Let me quote here again what Herman said to Sven, and express my opinion > that *answering a question* is NOT the same as *volunteering information*. > > QUOTE BEGIN > And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that > answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! > QUOTE END > Yes, and the 2mm ball bearing in my left hand is NOT the same as the 2mm ball bearing in my right hand. Not exactly the same, no sir. Herman's point is that the laws do not carefully distinguish between MI from answering a question and MI that came from volunteering information. When he says "same thing" here, he merely means that the distinction is quite unimportant to the matter at hand. Of course, anyone can see that they are not exactly the same thing. Earlier, I had assumed that your point was relevant to the discussion, but now I see that you only meant to say that they are not the same in the trivial sense. Jerry Fusselman From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 16 22:50:36 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:50:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710161146l44772a9en542636aa408095d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2a1c3a560710161146l44772a9en542636aa408095d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071016165036.7ad2b93e@linuxbox> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:46:18 +1300 "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > > Significantly it appears there has been some consultation or at least > communication with National Organizations about these changes. My > national organization has been quoting or alluding to these changes > for some time. On the other hand there has been no attempt that I am > aware of to get feedback on the laws and appropriate changes from > ordinary players. > > Many National Organizations have been abusing their restricted power > under the 1997 laws probably for the entire ten years of those laws > existence. The punishment, whoops I mean reward for that abuse of > power is that they now have "absolute total power with no constraint, > restriction or oversight" as Eric points out or that their powers have > been "extended considerably" as Grattan would prefer to state. > For anyone who enjoys playing any systems a bit out of the ordinary, then the answer is online bridge(*) - although Wayne already knows that. Maybe it's the way of the future. People who play at a high enough level for (highly) unusual methods to be allowed will develop and practice those methods online for their offline play. For the benefit of any BLML subscriber who hasn't tried the online services, then the system regulations on BBO are simple enough, anything is allowed subject to full disclosure, and alert anything you think might not be fully understood by your opponents. Might be different in the tournaments, I don't play in them. Brian. (*) Well, all right, before Richard and any of his compatriots point it out, I suppose emigration to Australia might be a rather extreme alternative option. -- -------------- 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/20071016/a015401b/attachment.pgp From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 16 22:51:55 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:51:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000c01c81036$6385f160$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............. > Not sure the arcane proceedings of a court has much relevance to this > discussion. I would compare Sven's assertion more how some say, "Yes, > I knowingly allowed you believe a complete falsehood (to your > detriment), but I did not actually lie to you." That strikes me as > hollow ethics at best. I must admit I do not understand at all what you are saying here? > I wonder if you, like Sven, also tend not to listen to partner's > explanations and rarely need to correct anything because you > intentionally weren't listening. It sounds like a convenient way to > play, but it currently seems unethical to me. Have I ever indicated that I do not listen? I can assure you that probably because of my background as maritime radio operator I tend to "hear" far more than I appreciate. But I make a very strong point of separating the information that is authorized for me from the information that is unauthorized for me. And to the best of my ability I avoid using UI at any time. So I resent you making any presumptions on my behalf, particularly when such presumptions are unfounded and false. > I think David called not hearing partner a desirable fiction, but Sven > calls it a desirable reality. It sounds like you agree with Sven, > but perhaps David does not. My guess is that very few in this forum > would support Sven on this particular issue, but I could be wrong. I believe that what I may have stated is that a player should act as if he has not heard what his partner has said. That is not the same as he has not heard it. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 16 23:00:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:00:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 10/16/07, Eric Landau wrote: >>> By design we have extended >>> considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system >>> it will regulate. >> >> ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading >> understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more >> along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, >> restriction or oversight". > > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the > majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? Nothing, obviously. "Making everyone bid more like them" is precisely the point. The ACBL has been trying to get all restrictions on their power to control how people bid removed at least since Don Oakie was President in the early 1970s. At first the WBF resisted (calling them out on a few flagrant illegalities), but soon threw up its hands and de facto permitted the ACBL do whatever it wanted, more recently adopting this as policy in those convoluted leopard-loo minutes (in which we learned that the power to regulate conventions permitted an RA, for example, to bar left-handed players from using conventions), and now fully legitimatizing it by making it explicit law. Of course, the majority will have no power to determine how they are required to bid henceforth; that will be entirely in the hands of the ACBL Board of Directors, who are elected by people (District Boards) who are elected by people (Unit Boards) who are elected in small-group meetings of "active members" (read local in-group) purportedly open to all but typically held behind closed doors without any publicity. Had the ACBL not participated in the formulation of the new laws, I very much doubt that we would have seen this sort of change. The very last obstacle between the ACBL BoD and the complete fulfillment of Don Oakie's everyone-must-bid-as-we-say agenda is the word "artificial" in the new L40B2(d). I imagine the lobbying campaign to have it removed from the 2017 laws has already begun. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 23:02:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:02:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), "On a Great Election": The accursed power which stands on Privilege (And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge) Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign: (Which goes with Bridge, and Women, and Champagne). Second Edition of LAW 79 - TRICKS WON A. Agreement on Tricks Won 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score. C. Error in Score 1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreed- upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. 2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong. * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest. EBU Appeals 2002, number 16: >Director's statement of facts: >In the first round triple Zmudzinski/Leslie/Taylor >it was agreed that Taylor lost to both. It was >thought that Leslie had beaten Zmudzinski by 1 >imp. Because of hotel problems the Polish Team had >to change hotels for 1 night. They did this at the >conclusion of the match at c3.15 pm. The TD drove >them to the new hotel and they walked back. On >their return at c3.55 pm they reported that the >match was in fact drawn. This was agreed. > >Director's ruling: >Match tied: four extra boards to be played. > >Details of ruling: >In ruling whether this was out of time the TD did >not count the time it took to make the hotel >change. The TD ruled, therefore, that the appeal to >change the score was therefore in time. Laws 81B2, >81C6, 93B1. > >Note by editor: >Under EBU regulations the correction period at the >end of a Spring Foursomes threesome ends 30 minutes >after scores are agreed and handed to the scorer. > >Appeal lodged by: >Leslie team > >Basis of appeal: >It was out of time to make a score change of this >type, and the TD was wrong to not include the >change-over time. > >Appeals Committee decision: >Director's ruling upheld >Deposit returned > >Appeals Committee's comments: >Very difficult. Richard Hills: This equitable decision by the Director and Appeals Committee was technically illegal under the 1997 Law 79C. So the new Law 79C2 now permits the Director and Tournament Organizer to unanimously vote for an emergency extension of the correction period when a scoring error is beyond reasonable doubt (provided that an appropriate enabling regulation has been created). For most of the drafting process, Law 87 (Fouled Board) had been sensibly included as Law 79D. At the last minute the equally sensible decision was taken to restore Law 87 as an independent Law. Therefore, there is a consequential typo in the first edition of Law 79B2 - the first edition phrase "in accordance with C or D below, as applicable," will be changed to "in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable," in the forthcoming second edition of the 2007 Lawbook. Plus the third edition of the 2007 Lawbook will include an advisory Appendix (currently being drafted by Ton Kooijman). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 16 23:23:49 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:23:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information References: <000901c80fda$d872d2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4714A77D.3000308@skynet.be><002601c81019$01d60850$20195e47@DFYXB361><179A1A29-371C-4963-B2E1-D13DB3852EAE@starpower.net><2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com><00bc01c81030$b50ecda0$20195e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0710161343s4c466bbq3300b92f345cccaf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c8103a$d80c6e20$20195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information > On 10/16/07, raija wrote: >> >> Let me quote here again what Herman said to Sven, and express my opinion >> that *answering a question* is NOT the same as *volunteering >> information*. >> >> QUOTE BEGIN >> And your problem is your apparently complete inability to see that >> answering a question and volunteering information are the same thing! >> QUOTE END >> > > Yes, and the 2mm ball bearing in my left hand is NOT the same as the > 2mm ball bearing in my right hand. Not exactly the same, no sir. > Herman's point is that the laws do not carefully distinguish between > MI from answering a question and MI that came from volunteering > information. When he says "same thing" here, he merely means that the > distinction is quite unimportant to the matter at hand. Of course, > anyone can see that they are not exactly the same thing. > > Earlier, I had assumed that your point was relevant to the discussion, > but now I see that you only meant to say that they are not the same in > the trivial sense. > > Jerry Fusselman What may seem trivial to one person, might not be trivial to another. This could well be true here. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 23:53:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:53:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthew 7:12 > > Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do > to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the > prophets. There are many ways to express the Golden Rule. I prefer "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 16 23:55:46 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:55:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2313FB62-A93D-4094-9953-10FCC317D296@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the > majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? Or even the minority in power? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 17 00:00:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:00:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <20071016165036.7ad2b93e@linuxbox> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2a1c3a560710161146l44772a9en542636aa408095d0@mail.gmail.com> <20071016165036.7ad2b93e@linuxbox> Message-ID: <44CC4588-1F87-4850-B842-B85F904F3039@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Brian wrote: > For the benefit of any BLML subscriber who hasn't tried the online > services, then the system regulations on BBO are simple enough, > anything is allowed subject to full disclosure, and alert anything you > think might not be fully understood by your opponents. Might be > different in the tournaments, I don't play in them. That alert regulation is a bit, well, loose. Suppose I don't think something needs to be alerted, but somebody else thinks it does? Suppose I alert something and an opponent thinks I'm insulting his intelligence or bridge knowledge? Aside from that, some TDs don't allow psyches (one obvious example of a regulation which violates the law which allows RAs to make regulations "not in conflict with these laws"). There are probably other extra-legal things. From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 17 00:03:02 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:03:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:53:03 EDT." Message-ID: <200710162202.PAA30290@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Matthew 7:12 > > > > Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do > > to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the > > prophets. > > > There are many ways to express the Golden Rule. I prefer "An' it harm > none, do what thou wilt." That's the Wiccan Rede, not the Golden Rule. It's certainly not merely a "way to express the Golden Rule", as it implies a whole lot more. (Source: Wiccan Rede in Wikipedia) -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 00:14:44 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:14:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <000c01c81036$6385f160$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c81036$6385f160$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161514p14ad5fb2jb62e0355a5dcc313@mail.gmail.com> Less than 24 hours ago: > 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to correct partner's explanation. [Sven] It does no such thing! What this law essentially says is that if a player notices an incorrect explanation given by his partner then he must do "so and so". This is not imposing any duty to (carefully) monitor everything partner says. [Jerry, now] Sven has asserted that there is no duty to monitor everything partner says for the purposes of correcting MI at the proper time. He says 1997L75D2 imposes no duty upon the the player to correct partner's explanation, because there is no duty to listen to partner to be able to correct MI. I interpret this to mean that he is saying that one can choose not to listen to partner at all, and then there is no need to ever correct his MI, because you did not hear it. I am not making any interpretations here, am I? This is Sven's position. [Jerry, previously in this thread] > > I wonder if you, like Sven, also tend not to listen to partner's > > explanations and rarely need to correct anything because you > > intentionally weren't listening. It sounds like a convenient way to > > play, but it currently seems unethical to me. [Sven] > Have I ever indicated that I do not listen? [Jerry] No, you have not. But you did say that not monitoring partner's answers is a fine, legal strategy and gives you the right to avoid ever having correct your partner's MI. See the top of this post. [Sven] > I can assure you that probably > because of my background as maritime radio operator I tend to "hear" far > more than I appreciate. [Jerry] Yes, good hearing does make it harder to implement the I-don't-need-to-correct-partner's-MI-because-I-did-not-hear-it strategy. Sorry about that. Are you saying that you wish your hearing was worse for better bridge results? [Sven] > But I make a very strong point of separating the > information that is authorized for me from the information that is > unauthorized for me. > > And to the best of my ability I avoid using UI at any time. > [Jerry] No one doubts this about you. In fact, I would not doubt this about anyone on BLML unless their words specifically proved otherwise. I was not addressing this whatsoever. [Sven] > So I resent you making any presumptions on my behalf, particularly when such > presumptions are unfounded and false. [Jerry] You did say that one could choose to not monitor partner for the purposes of not needing to correct his MI. Apparently, I assumed that you chose this strategy yourself, and that was my error. But you did explicitly state that it is a fine, fair, legal, and ethical strategy. See the top of this post. I did not know your hearing was too good to implement the strategy. Sorry about that part. [Jerry] > > I think David called not hearing partner a desirable fiction, but Sven > > calls it a desirable reality. It sounds like you agree with Sven, > > but perhaps David does not. My guess is that very few in this forum > > would support Sven on this particular issue, but I could be wrong. [Sven] > I believe that what I may have stated is that a player should act as if he > has not heard what his partner has said. That is not the same as he has not > heard it. [Jerry] I don't believe the laws perfectly support you on your first sentence here. I consider it a common mistake among players and directors alike. The laws ask for more than that. Perhaps I should say that your first sentence above is an oversimplification that does not handle all cases well. I will give an example: If your partner has said something (whether the words were volunteered or given in response to a question is profoundly irrelevant) providing you with UI that the wheels have come off the auction, then just ignoring what he said in not good enough. The laws demand more. You are supposed to figure out your logical alternatives and you are supposed to figure which of them to remove from your choice set because they are likely to turn out well based on what the UI suggests. Then you make a choice from those logical alternatives that remain. I think deciding to not listen to partner's words (in reality) is bad for two reasons: First, you will not be able to correct his MI. Second, you will not be able to make sure that your choice of action is a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. You apparently disagree with both parts. At least, that is what I infer from your writing today. Are we communicating now? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 17 00:15:25 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:15:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200710162202.PAA30290@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200710162202.PAA30290@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > That's the Wiccan Rede, not the Golden Rule. It's certainly not > merely a "way to express the Golden Rule", as it implies a whole lot > more. (Source: Wiccan Rede in Wikipedia) Well, since I would prefer to be left alone to do what I will, so long as I'm not harming anyone, I'll stick with the rede, thank you. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 17 17:58:55 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:58:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071017085533.0ccc2450@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 02:00 PM 16/10/2007, you wrote: >On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On 10/16/07, Eric Landau wrote: > >>> By design we have extended > >>> considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system > >>> it will regulate. > >> > >> ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading > >> understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more > >> along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, > >> restriction or oversight". > > > > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the > > majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? > >Nothing, obviously. "Making everyone bid more like them" is >precisely the point. The ACBL has been trying to get all >restrictions on their power to control how people bid removed at >least since Don Oakie was President in the early 1970s. At first the >WBF resisted (calling them out on a few flagrant illegalities), but >soon threw up its hands and de facto permitted the ACBL do whatever >it wanted, more recently adopting this as policy in those convoluted >leopard-loo minutes (in which we learned that the power to regulate >conventions permitted an RA, for example, to bar left-handed players >from using conventions), and now fully legitimatizing it by making it >explicit law. Of course, the majority will have no power to >determine how they are required to bid henceforth; that will be >entirely in the hands of the ACBL Board of Directors, who are elected >by people (District Boards) who are elected by people (Unit Boards) >who are elected in small-group meetings of "active members" (read >local in-group) purportedly open to all but typically held behind >closed doors without any publicity. > >Had the ACBL not participated in the formulation of the new laws, I >very much doubt that we would have seen this sort of change. > >The very last obstacle between the ACBL BoD and the complete >fulfillment of Don Oakie's everyone-must-bid-as-we-say agenda is the >word "artificial" in the new L40B2(d). I imagine the lobbying >campaign to have it removed from the 2017 laws has already begun. I am also intrigued by the fact that the RA may restrict the use of psychic calls. I presume that this just means something similar to what is already done in ACBL land..psyching 2NT after a weak 2 etc. Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 17 02:13:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:13:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2313FB62-A93D-4094-9953-10FCC317D296@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>What is to keep the majority in an RA from >>making everyone bid more like them? Ed Reppert: >Or even the minority in power? Nancy Sinatra: These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you. Richard Hills: Any RA minority which ignores the wishes of the RA majority will see those boots just walk away to other social activities or to different organizing authorities. For example, some years ago a private Tasmanian bridge club abolished Laws 68 to 71. When some members complained to the ABF about sessions becoming tediously long because claims were not permitted, the club responded by disaffiliating from the ABF, thus causing the complainants to join a more sensible bridge club. ;-) I believe further walking boots have caused that club to longer exist, since even the diehard loyalists later became sick of the diktats of the club's Director / Manager. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 17 03:04:43 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, restriction or oversight". [Jerry Fuselmann] I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? [nige1] To the naive player it may seem remiss of the WBFLC to devolve so much legislation to local jurisdictions (and relegate so many decisions to subjective criteria). Some players wonder why the WBFLC won't at least define a complete set of *default* rules -- some of which, local jurisdictions could amend. Grattan, however, has been consistent in pursuing his stated intention to facilitate and encourage geographical diversity of legislation (all based on "equity"). Many administrators and directors will be kept busily employed, thanks to the efforts of his team. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 17 03:20:33 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:20:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47156361.9040208@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] This typo, plus some other minor typos in the main numbered Laws, will be fixed in a second edition of the 2007 Lawbook. Keep an eye on Anna Gudge's ecats website, which will prominently note when the second edition of the 2007 Lawbook is available, and exactly what typos have been fixed. [nigel] This seems a break with hallowed tradition. In the past, I understand that players were expected to live with mistakes for ten years until the next version :) Directors and administrators were little better off although they had belated access to obscure and prolix minutes :) I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could hardly do much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 17 03:37:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:37:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Burns (1759-1796): O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, And foolish notion. LAW 76 - SPECTATORS A. Control 1. Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament. 2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers who grant facilities for electronic transmission of play as it occurs may establish by regulation the terms by which such transmissions are viewed and prescribe acceptable conduct for viewers. (A viewer must not communicate with a player in the course of a session in which the latter is playing.) B. At the Table 1. A spectator may not look at the hand of more than one player unless allowed by regulation. 2. A spectator must not show any reaction to the bidding or play when a deal is in progress. 3. During a round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind and must have no conversation with a player. 4. A spectator must not disturb a player. 5. A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game. C. Participation 1. A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. 2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to deal with irregularities caused by spectators. D. Status Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation. Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 76B1 corresponds to the 1997 Law 76A1. Note that this clause has been strengthened, with the 1997 "should not" now upgraded to the 2007 "may not", and the 1997 "except by permission" changed to the 2007 "unless allowed by regulation". In my personal opinion, I suspect that this strengthened clause is an anti-cheating provision. In Alan Sontag's amusing bridge autobiography, "The Bridge Bum", he relates how the girlfriend of an Eastern European player enthusiastically kibitzed all four hands, then conversed with her boyfriend in their native tongue during the bidding and play of the deal. ;-) Also, the old 1997 Laws 11B1 and 11B2 have been consolidated into the new 2007 Law 76C2. 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 Oct 17 03:41:37 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:41:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47156361.9040208@ntlworld.com> References: <47156361.9040208@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710161841g65893787u56f39c3cab56fe50@mail.gmail.com> [nigel] I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could hardly do much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. [Jerry] Yes, I wish that too. Maybe it was not possible for some reason. I suppose everyone on BLML has in mind a few names that they wish had been involved to make suggestions about the rules as they evolved. Besides a few of the consistent, high-volume contributors to BLML that I wished had been involved, I wish that they had consulted Rich Colker, Marv French, and David Burn. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 04:14:10 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:14:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card In-Reply-To: <200710161554.l9GFsWiv009783@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710161554.l9GFsWiv009783@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47156FF2.6030805@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute > proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - Just let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work that everyone involved has done. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 04:21:06 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:21:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <200710151631.l9FGVQjT026738@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710151631.l9FGVQjT026738@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47157192.3070007@nhcc.net> [Definition of "artificial call"] > From: Adam Beneschan >... since a "nothing to say" pass > would not promise any values or any strength, the only way you could > see this as artificial is if it "denies values other than in the last > suit named"; Exactly. > If so, then there are probably > some words missing from the definition. Maybe it was intended to mean > something like "promises or denies values IN A SUIT other than the > last suit named", but I don't know exactly what the authors had in > mind. I don't know either. That's why I thought the definition odd. In practice it won't matter; everyone will ignore the definition anyway. RAs can regulate whatever agreements they want, and it doesn't matter if a call is artificial or not. I'm slightly surprised there's a definition at all. From: "Grattan Endicott" > By design we have extended > considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system > it will regulate. As Eric wrote, "extended considerably" might better be phrased "removed all restrictions upon." From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 04:28:50 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:28:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke? In-Reply-To: <200710131609.l9DG9Lck006499@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710131609.l9DG9Lck006499@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47157362.3020702@nhcc.net> >>All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA >>face up and said can I see those cards again. ... >>After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and >>that he in fact has diamonds. > From: "Sven Pran" > 1: As you refer to a zone where asking partner for a possible revoke is > permitted the fact that LHO became aware of his revoke from his partner's > manners is irrelevant. Indeed; no penalty as such for the revoke. Had RHO simply said "Having none, partner?" there would have been no problem. > Consequently (IMO) the Director should have ruled: > The revoke is not established, LHO plays a legal card to the trick and the > S5 becomes a major penalty card. So far, so good. > In addition the Director should IMO impose a substantial procedural penalty > on RHO for violating Law 66 with its consequences, Perhaps so, depending on how experienced the offender is. > (IMO any Law 12 ruling on this case would be incorrect.) But this part is incorrect. L12A1 specifically authorizes an adjusted score if the NOS are damaged by any irregularity not otherwise provided for. The Director has to decide what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred. This is a judgment ruling, and I suppose one possibility is that RHO could have asked about the revoke in proper form, but that seems rather unlikely on the facts presented. More likely, it seems to me, is that RHO would have said nothing, and the revoke would have become established. But as I say, this is a judgment ruling and would take some investigation. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 04:34:53 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:34:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask > whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would not > have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense > of the original insufficient bid and correction. That's a very reasonable way to apply it, but I'm not sure I'd bet a large sum of money that it will be applied that way in practice. An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has to be one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the necessity of looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter interpretation. I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to discuss! From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 17 04:35:13 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:35:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> C'mon guys, give Grattan a break. He was secretary to the draftng commttee, but the laws are ultmately decided by the WBFLC, and above them the WBF executive commttee. At the end of the day, the WBFLC and executive committee have to be responsive to the membership (the various federatons). -Bob >[nige1] >To the naive player it may seem remiss of the WBFLC to devolve so much >legislation to local jurisdictions (and relegate so many decisions to >subjective criteria). > >Some players wonder why the WBFLC won't at least define a complete set >of *default* rules -- some of which, local jurisdictions could amend. > >Grattan, however, has been consistent in pursuing his stated intention >to facilitate and encourage geographical diversity of legislation (all > based on "equity"). > >Many administrators and directors will be kept busily employed, thanks >to the efforts of his team. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 04:52:38 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:52:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> > From: Ed Reppert > "Horrible" has nothing to do with it. The question is one of legality > - or perhaps of ethics, which in a game amounts to the same thing. Exactly. > It is a fundamental principle of this game that our opponents are > entitled to know everything that we know from partnership > understanding or experience, and that they are not entitled to know > (or more precisely, to be told) what we have in our hands. It is also > a fundamental principle of our game that we are entitled to base our > actions on information gleaned from legal calls and plays and from > mannerisms, comments and explanations from opponents. A corollary of > this second principle is that we are *not* entitled to base our > actions on extraneous information from partner. No, it's not a corollary; it's a separate, independent principle. One could imagine a game where either principle alone existed. (In the bad old days, lots of people played a game called bridge but without the "don't use UI" principle.) Yet another principle is that it is wrong to communicate with partner except via legal calls and plays. > Given those two > principles, I don't see how any rational person can assert that the > DwS has any reasonable basis. By ignoring inconvenient Laws, the opponents of the dWS have almost managed to convince me it must be correct. From: "Hirsch Davis" > there is a rather large > difference between correcting Partner's MI at the time required by Law and > providing MI on your own at a time you are required to correctly explain > system. From: "raija" > Let me quote here again what Herman said to Sven, and express my opinion > that *answering a question* is NOT the same as *volunteering information*. (I think others have made similar comments.) While anyone can see a difference between these, they are both covered by "in any manner." Thus for the purpose under discussion, it is far from obvious that the "rather large difference" actually matters in bridge Law. From: "Jerry Fusselman" > By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL nationals IMP > games that the laws state that when the wheels start falling off the > opponent's auction and they then use UI to get themselves back on > track, the most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable board > is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. It's +3 I think, and as you say, the "avg+ adjustment" is illegal now. (I have in the past argued that it's technically legal but a terrible idea.) Unfortunately, it will become inarguably legal in 2008. Let's hope our RA has enough sense not to go this way. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 17 05:01:45 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:01:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> In all the discussion, it seems to me there's an important point that went by too quickly. Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 points and opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces "15-17." South looks up and to his horror (though he hides it well) sees that his side is vulnerable; North has given the correct explanation. West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong NT (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing over weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or keep quiet (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? I think there's a 100% clear answer to this, but to my surprise, not everyone seems to agree. Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; I don't think there's any doubt about that under present interpretations. The question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 05:19:32 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:19:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710162019j4299a13u2700f5d2448a49b9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL nationals IMP > > games that the laws state that when the wheels start falling off the > > opponent's auction and they then use UI to get themselves back on > > track, the most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable board > > is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. > > It's +3 I think, and as you say, the "avg+ adjustment" is illegal now. > (I have in the past argued that it's technically legal but a terrible > idea.) Unfortunately, it will become inarguably legal in 2008. Let's > hope our RA has enough sense not to go this way. > Which new law will make inarguably legal in 2008? From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 05:28:11 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:28:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> References: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710162028l390caafoaf1c5b28baa0d3d9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/07, Steve Willner wrote: > In all the discussion, it seems to me there's an important point that > went by too quickly. > > Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 points and > opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces "15-17." South > looks up and to his horror (though he hides it well) sees that his side > is vulnerable; North has given the correct explanation. > > West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong NT > (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing over > weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or keep quiet > (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? > > I think there's a 100% clear answer to this, but to my surprise, not > everyone seems to agree. > > Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; I don't > think there's any doubt about that under present interpretations. The > question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). > Sounds easy to me. According to MS, announce "transfer," because that's the agreement. According to dWS, announce "transfer," because it gives no UI to partner. Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 18 00:11:19 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:11:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 07:34 PM 16/10/2007, you wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask > > whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would not > > have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense > > of the original insufficient bid and correction. > >That's a very reasonable way to apply it, but I'm not sure I'd bet a >large sum of money that it will be applied that way in practice. > >An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra >information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For >example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace >exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, >partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has to be >one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the necessity of >looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter interpretation. > >I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to >discuss! I'm afraid that like Herman, I did not read the 1st page so I have immediately started the new laws at my 4 clubs, so that I will have to read them. I am still worried about my original example 1C (1S) 1H. Do I have to offer the infractor either a negative double or 2H without penalty, or both. Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 18 00:57:22 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:57:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161514p14ad5fb2jb62e0355a5dcc313@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0710161212r62e8e2bcw53bd039527240d6d@mail.gmail.com> <000c01c81036$6385f160$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710161514p14ad5fb2jb62e0355a5dcc313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071017155405.025e3d60@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:14 PM 16/10/2007, you wrote: >Less than 24 hours ago: > > > 1997L75D2 imposes a duty upon the player to correct partner's explanation. > >[Sven] > >It does no such thing! > >What this law essentially says is that if a player notices an incorrect >explanation given by his partner then he must do "so and so". This is not >imposing any duty to (carefully) monitor everything partner says. > >[Jerry, now] > >Sven has asserted that there is no duty to monitor everything partner >says for the purposes of correcting MI at the proper time. He says >1997L75D2 imposes no duty upon the the player to correct partner's >explanation, because there is no duty to listen to partner to be able >to correct MI. > >I interpret this to mean that he is saying that one can choose not to >listen to partner at all, and then there is no need to ever correct >his MI, because you did not hear it. On many occasions I have ostentatiously put fingers in my ears when partner has been called to explain the system. That is because as a playing director I fill in with many at the last minute. I do not get time to discuss system, and I find that brings a je ne sais quoi to the game. I guess it is UI to show partner that I do not believe he will explain correctly, Tony (Sydney) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 17 09:07:46 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:07:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> Steve Willner schrieb: > > While anyone can see a difference between these (Answering vs. volunteering information), they are both covered > by "in any manner." Steve, if I _answer_ a question (which I am compelled by law to do), or if I _volunteer_ information (which I do willingly), would you say it is the same? Of course both may give UI, but (as the WBFLC tells us, see CoP) if I do so _without design_, being forced by law to do so, I commit no infraction. So if I commit no infraction by answering truthfully, but I commit an infraction by lying, which shall it be? Partner is not allowed to use UI in any case. > Thus for the purpose under discussion, it is far > from obvious that the "rather large difference" actually matters in > bridge Law. > > > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 09:38:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:38:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Steve Willner schrieb: >> While anyone can see a difference between these (Answering vs. volunteering information), they are both covered >> by "in any manner." > > Steve, if I _answer_ a question (which I am compelled by law to do), or > if I _volunteer_ information (which I do willingly), would you say it is > the same? Of course both may give UI, but (as the WBFLC tells us, see > CoP) if I do so _without design_, being forced by law to do so, I commit > no infraction. So if I commit no infraction by answering truthfully, but > I commit an infraction by lying, which shall it be? Partner is not > allowed to use UI in any case. The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying and speaking the truth, true) and so if you CHOOSE to talk the "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but you have committed an infraction nevertheless! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 09:42:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:42:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c80ff7$53b74e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001701c80ff7$53b74e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4715BCF5.7050404@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman, > Don't you read before posting? > >>From "Preface to the laws of duplicate bridge": > This latest revision supersedes the 1997 Code. Zonal authorities may > implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th > September 2008. > > Sven > And why this post Sven? In what way did anything I wrote seem wrong to you? Pau occurs between January and September (June in fact), so the EBL can implement the 2007 code, but they don't need to. I suppose they will, and that is what I wrote, but I cannot be certain. Maybe you have more information? What is this: "Herman is always wrong"? as usual? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 09:44:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:44:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c80ff7$53b74e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001701c80ff7$53b74e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4715BD4B.2070701@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman, > Don't you read before posting? > >>From "Preface to the laws of duplicate bridge": > This latest revision supersedes the 1997 Code. Zonal authorities may > implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th > September 2008. > And if this was just about my typo Pau 2007 (should of course be Pau 2008) I apologise to Sven for not understanding that I was saying something completely sensible after all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 09:45:22 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:45:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c80ffb$0bca14a0$8aa887d9@Hellen> References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> <003101c80ffb$0bca14a0$8aa887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4715BD92.6080603@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "Progress is not an accident but > a necessity." > {Herbert Spencer} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence >>> in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL >> will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a >> written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? >> Better start writing that in the CoC then! >> > +=+ I don't know about 2007. In Pau 2008 the 2007 laws > will apply. It was agreed that for international tournaments > the effective date would be 1st January 2008. At least one > Eastern European NBO plans the same date for its domestic > events, as I hear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> -- I assumed as much - but that does not answer my question: shall we require an absent member of the appealing side to provide written agreement with the appeal? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 10:37:46 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:37:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > C'mon guys, give Grattan a break. He was secretary to the > draftng commttee, but the laws are ultmately decided by the > WBFLC, and above them the WBF executive commttee. > > At the end of the day, the WBFLC and executive committee > have to be responsive to the membership (the various > federatons). > > -Bob > >>[nige1] >>To the naive player it may seem remiss of the WBFLC to devolve so much >>legislation to local jurisdictions (and relegate so many decisions to >>subjective criteria). >> >>Some players wonder why the WBFLC won't at least define a complete set >>of *default* rules -- some of which, local jurisdictions could amend. >> >>Grattan, however, has been consistent in pursuing his stated intention >>to facilitate and encourage geographical diversity of legislation (all >> based on "equity"). >> >>Many administrators and directors will be kept busily employed, thanks >>to the efforts of his team. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 17 10:41:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:41:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Answering a question vs. Volunteering Information In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161514p14ad5fb2jb62e0355a5dcc313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c81099$7b7a4330$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman .............. > You apparently disagree with both parts. At least, that is what I > infer from your writing today. Are we communicating now? Let me repeat: If you read Law 75D2 carefully you will notice that it is no violation of this law to not notice partner's incorrect explanation of your call. But whenever you notice that partner has made an incorrect explanation Law 75D2 requires you to notify opponents of this fact at the proper time and in the proper way. Sure, without screens or similar arrangements you will in most cases notice partner's errors, but failing to do so is no violation of Law 75D2 (The Director might however rule that it is a violation of Law 74B1!) That is all I have said, anything else you have speculated on my opinions etc. seems pulled out of thin air. Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 17 10:53:19 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:53:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> References: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c8109b$2b1a5360$814efa20$@com> [SW] Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 points and opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces "15-17." South looks up and to his horror (though he hides it well) sees that his side is vulnerable; North has given the correct explanation. West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong NT (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing over weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or keep quiet (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? I think there's a 100% clear answer to this, but to my surprise, not everyone seems to agree. Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; I don't think there's any doubt about that under present interpretations. The question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). [DALB] South should announce "transfer" (ACBL) or "spades" (EBU). He should then pass. I don't think this is a problem under either the dWS or the MS interpretation. The problem with the dWS arises when South opens 1NT vulnerable and hears North announce "13-15" (a misexplanation; North has either forgotten the system or not noticed the vulnerability). Now North bids 2H, which he intends as natural and non-forcing but which is systemically a transfer. Per the MS South announces "transfer" or "spades" (the correct description of the method, though an incorrect description of the North hand) and bids 2S. Per the dWS South makes no announcement (the wrong description of the method, though a correct description of the North hand) and presumably bids 2S (but see below). Under the MS, the opponents at least know that South just has a strong no trump. Under the dWS the opponents might conclude that South, who has removed a sign-off in 2H to 2S, has: psyched 1NT; or bid 2S as a game try with a super-maximum, heart support, and spade values; or opened 1NT with five to 100 honours in spades and two low hearts; or... But why should they have to guess? Or why should they have to ask? Why does the dWS in effect force South to misrepresent his own hand, just because North has misrepresented his? Why, in short, does the dWS exist at all? Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere, according to Law and the MS South must bid 2S, but according to the dWS he must not, because this is an indication to North that a mistake has been made. I am still waiting for Herman's answer to this, but I suspect I may have to wait a long time. David Burn London, England From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Oct 17 11:10:10 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 17 Oct 2007 11:10:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: <20071017091010.38BC13E887B@f38.poczta.interia.pl> > [SW] > > Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 points and > opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces "15-17." South > looks up and to his horror (though he hides it well) sees that his side > is vulnerable; North has given the correct explanation. > > West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong NT > (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing over > weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or keep quiet > (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? > > I think there's a 100% clear answer to this, but to my surprise, not > everyone seems to agree. > > Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; I don't > think there's any doubt about that under present interpretations. The > question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). > > [DALB] > > South should announce "transfer" (ACBL) or "spades" (EBU). He should then > pass. > > I don't think this is a problem under either the dWS or the MS > interpretation. The problem with the dWS arises when South opens 1NT > vulnerable and hears North announce "13-15" (a misexplanation; North has > either forgotten the system or not noticed the vulnerability). Now North > bids 2H, which he intends as natural and non-forcing but which is > systemically a transfer. Per the MS South announces "transfer" or > "spades" > (the correct description of the method, though an incorrect description > of > the North hand) and bids 2S. Per the dWS South makes no announcement (the > wrong description of the method, though a correct description of the > North > hand) and presumably bids 2S (but see below). > > Under the MS, the opponents at least know that South just has a strong no > trump. Under the dWS the opponents might conclude that South, who has > removed a sign-off in 2H to 2S, has: psyched 1NT; or bid 2S as a game try > with a super-maximum, heart support, and spade values; or opened 1NT with > five to 100 honours in spades and two low hearts; or... > > But why should they have to guess? You seem to be under the impression that all the MI given by a player who follows dWs will go unpunished. It won't. Instead of describing 2H as a transfer to spades South told his opponents that 2H is natural and non-forcing. South will correct this when he becomes declarer or dummy (or after the hand is over when he becomes defender). If the opponents have been damaged by this misexplanation the TD will adjust. -- Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz najwiekszy absurd wyborczy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1c12 From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 17 11:11:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:11:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161841g65893787u56f39c3cab56fe50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901c8109d$c602eed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > [nigel] > > I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for > comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism > might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could hardly do > much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. > > [Jerry] > > Yes, I wish that too. Maybe it was not possible for some reason. It was released to NBOs. I suppose the anticipated volume of comments limited who should receive the draft versions. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 17 11:15:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:15:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000a01c8109e$51135dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask > > whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would not > > have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense > > of the original insufficient bid and correction. > > That's a very reasonable way to apply it, but I'm not sure I'd bet a > large sum of money that it will be applied that way in practice. > > An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra > information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For > example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace > exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, > partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has to be > one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the necessity of > looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter > interpretation. > > I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to > discuss! Have you guys overlooked the new Law 27C2? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 17 11:27:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:27:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4715BCF5.7050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8109f$e04a2860$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > Herman, > > Don't you read before posting? > > > >>From "Preface to the laws of duplicate bridge": > > This latest revision supersedes the 1997 Code. Zonal authorities may > > implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th > > September 2008. > > > > Sven > > > > And why this post Sven? In what way did anything I wrote seem wrong to > you? Pau occurs between January and September (June in fact Sorry, if Pau 2007 (as you wrote) actually occurs in 2008 I apologize. >From your entry I assumed that it would occur late this year. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 17 11:31:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:31:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710162019j4299a13u2700f5d2448a49b9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>>By the way, I have been told more than twice in ACBL >>>nationals IMP games that the laws state that when the >>>wheels start falling off the opponent's auction and >>>they then use UI to get themselves back on track, the >>>most we are entitled to on the now almost unplayable >>>board is 3 or 4 (I cannot remember which) IMPs. Steve Willner: >>It's +3 I think, and as you say, the "avg+ adjustment" >>is illegal now. (I have in the past argued that it's >>technically legal but a terrible idea.) Unfortunately, >>it will become inarguably legal in 2008. Let's hope >>our RA has enough sense not to go this way. Jerry Fusselman: >Which new law will make inarguably legal in 2008? Law 12C1(d): If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. Richard Hills: Although the chilling words "or not obvious" are in this Law, the comforting word "may" (rather than "must") also appears. 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 Oct 17 11:48:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:48:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Lord Bowen (1835-1894): The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because The ujust steals the just's umbrella. LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE ..... C. Violations of Procedure The following are examples of violations of procedure: ..... Richard Hills: The wording of the prologue to Law 74C has been improved in order to give the Director expanded umbrella retrieval powers. The previous 1997 wording was "The following are **considered** violations of procedure:" Ergo, Law 74C now contains merely indicative examples (a la Law 90B), so the Director can now rule against the entire umbrella of possible coffee-housing instead of merely ruling against the selected eight coffee- houses specifically listed in the sub- sections of Law 74C. 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 eitan.bridge at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 18:18:07 2007 From: eitan.bridge at gmail.com (Eitan Levy) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:18:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: It's probably easier to have a line or rubric on the appeal form where the players can sign their concurrence. (The players normally see the appeal form prior to the appeal, Also, this way a player reading the TD's reasoning may decide not to concur. ) Eitan Levy On 10/16/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence > > in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. > > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > > > > A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL > will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a > written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? > Better start writing that in the CoC then! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071016/f822cde1/attachment.htm From eitan.bridge at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 10:08:05 2007 From: eitan.bridge at gmail.com (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:08:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4715BD92.6080603@skynet.be> References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> <003101c80ffb$0bca14a0$8aa887d9@Hellen> <4715BD92.6080603@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman has raised a good PRACTICAL point, that deserves some consideration other than quibbling about his 2007/2008 typo (which I presume was in jest.) My reading is that yes, we need the active concurrence of the partner. At the local level this could be an oral concurrence (TD: do you agree wuth your partner's request for an appeal hearing?) . At a higher level, eg Pau 2008, this could also be sufficient. However I think somethinh more concrete is needed and my experience indicates that it would be easier to give a special form/appeal form to the appelant and ask him to sign and obtain the signature of his partner (and bring it to the hearing), than to rely on finding the partner and getting the relevant concurrence before the appeal hearing, which often takes place in rushed conditions. In a previous post I suggested - 'It's probably easier to have a line or rubric on the appeal form where the players can sign their concurrence. (The players normally see the appeal form prior to the appeal, Also, this way a player reading the TD's reasoning may decide not to concur. ) ' On 10/17/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > > ************************* > > "Progress is not an accident but > > a necessity." > > {Herbert Spencer} > > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>> +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence > >>> in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. > >>> ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > >>> > >> A practical question: shall we require, in Pau 2007 (I assume the EBL > >> will use the new laws from then) that an absent player hands in a > >> written confirmation that he agrees with the appeal? > >> Better start writing that in the CoC then! > >> > > +=+ I don't know about 2007. In Pau 2008 the 2007 laws > > will apply. It was agreed that for international tournaments > > the effective date would be 1st January 2008. At least one > > Eastern European NBO plans the same date for its domestic > > events, as I hear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> -- > > I assumed as much - but that does not answer my question: shall we > require an absent member of the appealing side to provide written > agreement with the appeal? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071017/6390538d/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 10:18:21 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:18:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Laws Committee meeting. Message-ID: <00da01c81096$4f27db10$33cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Minutes of a Meeting of the WBF Laws Committee > held in Shanghai on 7th October 2007 > -+- > > Present: > T. Kooijman, Chairman > C. Martel, Vice Chairman > G. Endicott, Secretary > J. Wignall, Chairman of the Laws Drafting Subcommittee > M. Di Sacco > J. Gerard > B. Gignoux > A. Levy > J. Polisner > W. Schoder > > 1. Opening the meeting the Chairman welcomed the members present and > invited Mr. Wignall to speak to the progress of the Drafting Subcommittee > in its task. > > 2. Mr. Wignall reminded the Committee of the requirement in the Bye-Laws > to "make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure" > once in every decade. He noted the current composition of the > subcommittee, Mr.Polisner and Mrs. Gerard having joined it to replace > Mr. V. Anderson and the late Mr. Ralph Cohen, a great loss to the > subcommittee. Mr. Wignall gave a history of the subcommittee's activity > over five years, approximately, since it was first appointed, and referred to > its use of technological developments to assist its work. He said that the > subcommittee had "pretty much arrived" at the end of its task and expected > to discharge its duties finally in the course of the current Championships. > > 3. The Chairman expressed a desire to hear the committee's views in > relation to a number of subjects, in particular those contained in Laws 13, > 14, 27, 61 and 69. > > 4. The committee discussed each of these laws and members offered > their opinions severally in relation to them. > > 5. Mr. Kooijman recorded that the subcommittee had an intention of > preparing an appendix of guidance on and illustrations of some of the > more interesting matters in the 2007 Code. This would not have the > force of law but would be helpful, it was believed, to Directors > confronted by problematic situations. > > 6. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and closed the meeting. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071017/bb25f1f5/attachment.htm From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 17 12:26:38 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:26:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <44CC4588-1F87-4850-B842-B85F904F3039@rochester.rr.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2a1c3a560710161146l44772a9en542636aa408095d0@mail.gmail.com> <20071016165036.7ad2b93e@linuxbox> <44CC4588-1F87-4850-B842-B85F904F3039@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <20071017062638.15868029@linuxbox> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:00:31 -0400 Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Brian wrote: > > > For the benefit of any BLML subscriber who hasn't tried the online > > services, then the system regulations on BBO are simple enough, > > anything is allowed subject to full disclosure, and alert anything > > you think might not be fully understood by your opponents. Might be > > different in the tournaments, I don't play in them. > > That alert regulation is a bit, well, loose. Suppose I don't think > something needs to be alerted, but somebody else thinks it does? You err on the side of over-alerting. Occasionally it will still happen, of course. You have to remember that these alert regulations need to be comprehensible by players from all over the world, many of whom will have limited knowledge of English. The occasional "you should have alerted that" seems a small price to pay for simplicity. In my experience, most people who are playing something unusual are conscientious about alerting. It's the SAYC and 2/1 players who seldom, if ever, alert. > Suppose I alert something and an opponent thinks I'm insulting his > intelligence or bridge knowledge? > Then it's time to find a new opponent. Anyone who takes offence at someone who is obviously trying to practice full disclosure is obviously an idiot. The alert involves no extra work for the opponent, and they can ignore the explanations if they want to. Just shove said oppo on your twit list, and forget about him/her. 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/20071017/964e8572/attachment.pgp From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 16 16:50:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:50:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws References: <000801c80fd8$765cb980$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c810aa$f15b5b00$a9ac87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Cc: ; "'Grattan Endicott'" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Footnotes in the new laws >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ............. >> +=+ It will be recognized that in the drafting we did not know >> how many footnotes there would be or where they would come >> and go. There is nothing to stop anyone converting the laws into >> book form from entering numbers in place of the asterisks, >> provided they do it accurately. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It would be nice to have some kind of an official guide as to which > footnote > is assigned which unique reference. This would facilitate communications > on > the laws between different NBOs. > > Be aware also that some NBOs might want to add their own footnotes, for > instance where the laws contain a clause like "The Regulating Authority > may". > > In previous translations of the laws we have in Norway had a system of > using > single asterisks for WBF footnotes and double asterisks for footnotes > added > by the Norwegian NBO. > > Regards Sven > +=+ There are other symbols than the asterisk. An NBO could use one such. In the English edition (1997) they chose to number the footnotes. +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 13:30:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:30:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c8109b$2b1a5360$814efa20$@com> References: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> <000001c8109b$2b1a5360$814efa20$@com> Message-ID: <4715F26C.6050703@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SW] > > Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 points and > opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces "15-17." South > looks up and to his horror (though he hides it well) sees that his side > is vulnerable; North has given the correct explanation. > > West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong NT > (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing over > weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or keep quiet > (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? > > I think there's a 100% clear answer to this, but to my surprise, not > everyone seems to agree. > > Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; I don't > think there's any doubt about that under present interpretations. The > question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). > > [DALB] > > South should announce "transfer" (ACBL) or "spades" (EBU). He should then > pass. > > I don't think this is a problem under either the dWS or the MS > interpretation. Indeed this is not a problem - both schools will explain similarly. > The problem with the dWS arises when South opens 1NT > vulnerable and hears North announce "13-15" (a misexplanation; North has > either forgotten the system or not noticed the vulnerability). Now North > bids 2H, which he intends as natural and non-forcing but which is > systemically a transfer. Per the MS South announces "transfer" or "spades" > (the correct description of the method, though an incorrect description of > the North hand) and bids 2S. Per the dWS South makes no announcement (the > wrong description of the method, though a correct description of the North > hand) and presumably bids 2S (but see below). > > Under the MS, the opponents at least know that South just has a strong no > trump. Under the dWS the opponents might conclude that South, who has > removed a sign-off in 2H to 2S, has: psyched 1NT; or bid 2S as a game try > with a super-maximum, heart support, and spade values; or opened 1NT with > five to 100 honours in spades and two low hearts; or... > > But why should they have to guess? Because North will have to guess as well? > Or why should they have to ask? Because North will explain all he knows. > Why does > the dWS in effect force South to misrepresent his own hand, just because > North has misrepresented his? Why, in short, does the dWS exist at all? > ... > Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere, according to Law and the MS South > must bid 2S, but according to the dWS he must not, because this is an > indication to North that a mistake has been made. I am still waiting for > Herman's answer to this, but I suspect I may have to wait a long time. > No, the player should follow his L16 duties at all times. And yes, those duties superseed the ones in L75D2 to not indicate that an error has been made. Moreover, I do not appreciate that you suspect you may have to wait, I gave this same answer some days ago. First you complain that I continually say the same thing (while I continually answer to your same arguments) and now you let it seem as if my silence would mean I have no answers to your arguments? Sorry David, but you do not play the game very honestly (the discussing game, I have no doubt your bridge game is as honest as they come). > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 17 13:33:56 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:33:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Endicott's Fork. Message-ID: <000601c810b1$a1040470$dfab87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Ruminating in Shanghai on the word 'likely' in 2007 Law 69B2, I asked myself whether a flawed claim is an "irregularity". It is not an infraction, that is clear, but it does seem to have the stamp of 'irregularity'. Then I asked myself whether amending the score after a flawed claim is a score adjustment. At breakfast Bill Schoder seemed to think it was. So then I asked myself crucially whether, if this were so, Law 12C1(a) would allow of a 12C1(c) forked score revision should two play continuations qualify as 'likely' under Law 69B2. I could see it being helpful if such a construction were to be placed on the foregoing laws. This is what my missing second message was about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 17 13:42:05 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:42:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu><471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001101c810b2$c131f940$dfab87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 >> >>An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra >>information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For >>example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace >>exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, >>partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has to be >>one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the necessity of >>looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter >>interpretation. >> >>I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to >>discuss! > +=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement 'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 17 14:05:40 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:05:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014401c80fd8$519dd570$dca087d9@Hellen> <4714A856.9040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006f01c810b6$0c41a4a0$dfab87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ A member of the DSC passed such a comment when we were discussing the move to abolish 'deemed to concur'. However, we considered this not to be an appropriate matter to ordain in law. Each RA should determine its own arrangements. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: Eitan Levy To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It's probably easier to have a line or rubric on the appeal form where the players can sign their concurrence. (The players normally see the appeal form prior to the appeal, Also, this way a player reading the TD's reasoning may decide not to concur. ) Eitan Levy Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ In the 2007 Laws positive evidence of his concurrence > in the appeal is requisite for the appeal to be heard. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 17 14:27:35 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:27:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions > are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying > and speaking the truth, true) What choice? The law tells me what to do, so I do it. Choice is not involved. Since I have, in fact, no choice (since I am bound by th law), there is no design on my part. And don`t tell me I could choose to break the law. This is not how anything governed by rules is played. Deliberate rulebreaking is out of the question. > and so if you CHOOSE to talk the > "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do > it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but > you have committed an infraction nevertheless! > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 14:53:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:53:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > ISTM that "extended considerably" is a rather misleading > understatement. I believe the phrase Grattan is looking for is more > along the lines of "absolute total power with no constraint, > restriction or oversight". > > [Jerry Fuselmann] > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep the > majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? > > [nige1] > To the naive player it may seem remiss of the WBFLC to devolve so much > legislation to local jurisdictions (and relegate so many decisions to > subjective criteria). > > Some players wonder why the WBFLC won't at least define a complete set > of *default* rules -- some of which, local jurisdictions could amend. I'd have expected Nigel to be pleased with the new L40, which takes a first step in this direction. Although it leaves it entirely up to the RA to regulate "special partnership understandings", it does contain the first "Nigellian default rule" we've seen: L40B1(b) specifies what shall constitute a "special partnership understanding" (a "convention"(?) or "any call that has an artificial meaning") in the absense of any action by the RA. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 16:25:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:25:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions >> are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying >> and speaking the truth, true) > > What choice? The law tells me what to do, so I do it. Choice is not > involved. Since I have, in fact, no choice (since I am bound by th law), > there is no design on my part. And don`t tell me I could choose to break > the law. This is not how anything governed by rules is played. > Deliberate rulebreaking is out of the question. > Indeed Matthias, and you've made it easy on me by not mentioning a law number in here. I can simply insert L75D2 and this sentence could be mine entirely. I choose to follow L75D2, so I believe I have no choice either! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 17 16:26:09 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:26:09 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: >The problem with the dWS arises when South opens 1NT > vulnerable and hears North announce "13-15" (a misexplanation; North has > either forgotten the system or not noticed the vulnerability). Now North > bids 2H, which he intends as natural and non-forcing but which is > systemically a transfer. Per the MS South announces "transfer" or "spades" > (the correct description of the method, though an incorrect description of > the North hand) and bids 2S. Per the dWS South makes no announcement (the > wrong description of the method, though a correct description of the North > hand) and presumably bids 2S (but see below). A more extreme example where dWS would deliberately deceive would be where, for example, two Eastern Europeans, we will call them Mudslingski and Ballsupski, are playing a Raptor 1NT overcall (Artificial, non-forcing, 10-15, exactly 4-card unbid major, longer unbid minor, wrong shape for a takeout double). Mudslingski overcalls an opening 1H bid with 1NT and Ballsupski does not alert (thinking it is strong balanced) and responds 2C. MS would explain this is as "Pass or Correct" and if Mudslingski now bids 2D, Ballsupski would explain this as "not four spades (plus explaining what 2H would mean if discussed)" and the auction would proceed ethically in the Burn-Price manner to whatever nether regions it is destined. If the opponents seem mystified by your explanations, perhaps replying "We are none the wiser", just answer, in the words of F E Smith, "No, but you are much better informed." The dWS, however continues to deceive in that the 2C bid would be falsely explained as "Stayman" and the director has to work out whether the opponents would have bid on if the dummy is now put down, or to award redress if the opponents do mistakenly balance on the assumption that the 1NT overcaller was "having a little joke" with a weak jump overcall in clubs. The main problem of dWS is that it deliberately hides from the opponents the fact that a wheel has come off. Indeed they may never become aware of it if an unethical player pretends that he has miscounted his points in the 15-17 NT example above. In short, the dWS makes it easier to cheat, which is yet another thing against it, not that another thing is needed. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Oct 17 16:44:53 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:44:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@ nhcc.net><4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47161FE5.1040307@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Steve Willner schrieb: >>> While anyone can see a difference between these (Answering vs. volunteering information), they are both covered >>> by "in any manner." >> Steve, if I _answer_ a question (which I am compelled by law to do), or >> if I _volunteer_ information (which I do willingly), would you say it is >> the same? Of course both may give UI, but (as the WBFLC tells us, see >> CoP) if I do so _without design_, being forced by law to do so, I commit >> no infraction. So if I commit no infraction by answering truthfully, but >> I commit an infraction by lying, which shall it be? Partner is not >> allowed to use UI in any case. > > The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions > are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying > and speaking the truth, true) and so if you CHOOSE to talk the > "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do > it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but > you have committed an infraction nevertheless! > i see circular reasoning here: you conclude "with design" from the premise "dws acceptability" accepted. but why is it accepted? because you say it's a lesser evil in a situation in which all actions include breaking a law? and why do MS actions break a law? you say it is because it implies giving UI "with design". "with design" is at the beginning and at the conclusion of your reasoning. i think this notion of design is the crux of your disagreement with the majority. MS read "gratuitous info" as distinct to mandatory info, "indicate" as an active verb (actions such as body language) and don't detect free will when compelled by law to do something. you don't read it the same way. by the way: where did the headings go in 2007 release? no more gratuitous? they didn't help us with herman case! jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Oct 17 17:06:53 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:06:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <001101c810b2$c131f940$dfab87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: +=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement 'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is an interesting view but it might be wrong. 27C2 only applies if the contract being played is reached with assistence of the insufficient bid. But the question arising here is whether the TD should or should not have allowed the auction to be continued normally. And if the answer is that he should not while he did the contract could well have been different. So 27C2 covers part of the problem but not all. My prediction is that the change in L27 will quite likely appear to be a, if not the, most interesting one. And I will read all mails related to 27 with great interest; don't be surprised if some of it will appear in the guide to be wrtitten. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Oct 17 17:23:24 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:23:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> Message-ID: Herman: > and so if you CHOOSE to talk the > "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do > it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but > you have committed an infraction nevertheless! ton: It is probably not possibbele to ask you (Herman) with any hoped for effect to stop this nonsense. Giving UI is not an infraction in itself. Giving information which your partner expects you to give if that information is not in accordance with the agreements is an infraction. See for example new Law 72A3. Since your stubborness makes it likely that you never will agree with this view (and the laws) may I ask you to add a permanent 'IN MY OPINION' if you need to say it again? 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 From jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Oct 17 17:42:27 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: <19691118.1192635747516.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: ton >Sent: Oct 17, 2007 11:23 AM >To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >Herman: > >> and so if you CHOOSE to talk the >> "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do >> it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but >> you have committed an infraction nevertheless! > > > >ton: >It is probably not possibbele to ask you (Herman) with any hoped for effect >to stop this nonsense. I've missed most of the last 840 messages on this thread, but I certainly agree with Ton's point above. We have new laws. Let's explore those threads, shall we? Can we end the dWS discussion? We know Herman's feelings are delicate and the rest of us cheat, so I really don't see a need to continue running in circles on this. --JRM From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Oct 17 18:34:51 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:34:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: Message-ID: <01aa01c810db$a4c2a100$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: > The main problem of > dWS is that it deliberately hides from the opponents the fact that a > wheel > has come off. The opponents have no right to know that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1c2a From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 18:42:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:42:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47161FE5.1040307@meteo.fr> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@ nhcc.net><4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <47161FE5.1040307@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <47163B5E.9080901@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Steve Willner schrieb: >>>> While anyone can see a difference between these (Answering vs. volunteering information), they are both covered >>>> by "in any manner." >>> Steve, if I _answer_ a question (which I am compelled by law to do), or >>> if I _volunteer_ information (which I do willingly), would you say it is >>> the same? Of course both may give UI, but (as the WBFLC tells us, see >>> CoP) if I do so _without design_, being forced by law to do so, I commit >>> no infraction. So if I commit no infraction by answering truthfully, but >>> I commit an infraction by lying, which shall it be? Partner is not >>> allowed to use UI in any case. >> The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions >> are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying >> and speaking the truth, true) and so if you CHOOSE to talk the >> "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do >> it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but >> you have committed an infraction nevertheless! >> > i see circular reasoning here: > you conclude "with design" from the premise "dws acceptability" > accepted. but why is it accepted? because you say it's a lesser evil in > a situation in which all actions include breaking a law? and why do MS > actions break a law? you say it is because it implies giving UI "with > design". "with design" is at the beginning and at the conclusion of your > reasoning. i think this notion of design is the crux of your > disagreement with the majority. MS read "gratuitous info" as distinct to > mandatory info, "indicate" as an active verb (actions such as body > language) and don't detect free will when compelled by law to do > something. you don't read it the same way. Yes, maybe there is circular reasoning in my arguments as well. But there is certainly circular reasoning in the arguments that the MS put forward. They believe that the MS are legal, because there is no alternative, since the dWS actions are illegal. And they say the dWS are illegal, because the MS are legal. I say that both actions are illegal, and both are acceptable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 18:44:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:44:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47163C01.4080904@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In > short, the dWS makes it easier to cheat, which is yet another thing against > it, not that another thing is needed. > I don't need no dWS to cheat, thank you very much. I can easily cheat without having to answer a second question. Just forget to correct my partner's mistake, and cheating accomplished. This argument has been there and answered. I resent the personality of the attack. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 17 18:46:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:46:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <47163C55.7050008@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > Herman: > >> and so if you CHOOSE to talk the >> "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do >> it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but >> you have committed an infraction nevertheless! > > > > ton: > It is probably not possibbele to ask you (Herman) with any hoped for effect > to stop this nonsense. > Giving UI is not an infraction in itself. Giving information which your > partner expects you to give if that information is not in accordance with > the agreements is an infraction. See for example new Law 72A3. > > Since your stubborness makes it likely that you never will agree with this > view (and the laws) > may I ask you to add a permanent 'IN MY OPINION' if you need to say it > again? > > 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > Ton, I am surprised. You of all people I would have expected to grasp the more finer points at stake here. I will cease - for now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 18:48:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:48:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <3D4ECD34-C532-45E8-A8CA-2DAC2C09C407@starpower.net> On Oct 16, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > C'mon guys, give Grattan a break. He was secretary to the > draftng commttee, but the laws are ultmately decided by the > WBFLC, and above them the WBF executive commttee. > > At the end of the day, the WBFLC and executive committee > have to be responsive to the membership (the various > federatons). I don't see why they "have to be", although they may choose to be. When you are charged with the task of writing the rules for a game which is played in organized competition, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that your primary obligation is to be responsive to the competitors who will be playing that game by those rules. That's not to say that the WBFLC should ignore the desires of the corporate entities that are their nominall "members", but there's a case for serving the game and its players rather than the regulators and organizers when their interests conflict. Not that this has anything to do with Grattan, who, along with many others responsible for the task of turning WBF decisions into an actual lawbook, has done the game a heroic service for which we are all grateful. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 17 18:48:40 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:48:40 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 17/10/2007 17:44:39 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: >I resent the personality of the attack. No personality could be inferred from the statement, and none was intended. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 17 18:59:31 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:59:31 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 17/10/2007 17:35:19 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm writes: >The opponents have no right to know that you are in the >middle of a misunderstanding. I didn't say they did. But they do have the right to get the correct explanation of your methods from each player. Therefore if one player gives a wrong explanation (which he is not allowed to give deliberately), then his or her partner must still give the correct explanation of your methods when he or she is asked. If that is inconsistent, the opponents will know that a misunderstanding has occurred. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 19:03:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:03:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Ed Reppert >> "Horrible" has nothing to do with it. The question is one of legality >> - or perhaps of ethics, which in a game amounts to the same thing. > > Exactly. Why should we expect games to be different from real life, where legality and ethics can be very different things indeed? In some games they may reduce to the same thing, but there are games (e.g. baseball) with long and hallowed traditions of creative cheating, where trying to break laws and get away with it is an accepted part of the game, and there are games (e.g. cricket) with long and hallowed traditions of players being expected to go well beyond what the rules require to comport themselves as "[ladies and] gentlemen". Historically, bridge has been one of the latter, although that has largely disappeared of late (and may not be as much missed as some would like to believe). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 17 19:12:02 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:12:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card References: <200710161554.l9GFsWiv009783@cfa.harvard.edu> <47156FF2.6030805@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <011a01c810e0$d5d93600$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute >> proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - > > Just let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work that everyone > involved has done. The committee has done better than just inventing the camel. Well done. john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Oct 17 19:18:11 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:18:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <19691118.1192635747516.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <01c301c810e1$b251a400$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mayne" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > -----Original Message----- >>From: ton >>Sent: Oct 17, 2007 11:23 AM >>To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> >>Herman: >> >>> and so if you CHOOSE to talk the >>> "truth", you have given UI _with design_. I can understand that you do >>> it, and I won't rule against you (more severely than I have to), but >>> you have committed an infraction nevertheless! >> >> >> >>ton: >>It is probably not possibbele to ask you (Herman) with any hoped for >>effect >>to stop this nonsense. > > I've missed most of the last 840 messages on this thread, but I certainly > agree with Ton's point above. > > We have new laws. Let's explore those threads, shall we? > > Can we end the dWS discussion? We know Herman's feelings are delicate and > the rest of us cheat, so I really don't see a need to continue running in > circles on this. > If you are not interested - don't read. Or make a filter for this thread. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz najwiekszy absurd wyborczy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1c12 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 19:12:19 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:12:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <47153490007737A2@mail-10-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-10.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <008301c810e3$ecc62b90$c3ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > > +=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement > 'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may > let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to > him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This is an interesting view but it might be wrong. 27C2 only applies if > the > contract being played is reached with assistence of the insufficient bid. > But the question arising here is whether the TD should or should not have > allowed the auction to be continued normally. And if the answer is that he > should not while he did the contract could well have been different. > +=+ Technically true. But I wonder what kind of situation in which the insufficient bid has conveyed information not present in the replacement call would not affect the potential contract in some way, so that it "could well have been different" in the absence of that additional information. That is the thought in my mind. I think we will all find the development of case law interesting in this regard. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 19:19:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:19:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <471536F3007CE7C1@mail-8-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-8.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <008401c810e3$ee4f8ab0$c3ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > ton: > It is probably not possibbele to ask you (Herman) with any hoped for > effect > to stop this nonsense. > Giving UI is not an infraction in itself. Giving information which your > partner expects you to give if that information is not in accordance with > the agreements is an infraction. See for example new Law 72A3. > > Since your stubborness makes it likely that you never will agree with this > view (and the laws) > may I ask you to add a permanent 'IN MY OPINION' if you need to say it > again? > +=+ Oh.ton, please do not try to close Herman down. Everyone knows how utterly misguided are his arguments and his provocative debates are so helpful in drawing the fire away from more troublesome questions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 19:33:28 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:33:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710151549.IAA10728@mailhub.irvine.com> <010b01c80fd1$36b4cfe0$dca087d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com><47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008501c810e3$ef80b7b0$c3ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws >> >>. Although it leaves it entirely >>up to > the RA to regulate "special partnership understandings", it does > contain the first "Nigellian default rule" we've seen: L40B1(b) > specifies what shall constitute a "special partnership > understanding" (a "convention"(?) or "any call that has an artificial > meaning") in the absense of any action by the RA. > +=+ The 2007 Code of Laws incorporates quite a number of such 'default' provisions. Pretty well everywhere the RA has an option, I think, except in Law 76 and, as we have already noted, in Law 92D. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 19:43:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:43:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:37 AM, wrote: > We received opinion on our earlier > draft from some seventeen sources - NBOs and Zones plus the > Portland Club - and any individual players wishing to express > opinions were guided (here on blml, for example) to send them > to their NBOs. Bear in mind that the members of the WBF are > the NBOs. Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: Individual players wishing to express opinions have a better chance of conveying those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece of paper, put it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they send them to their NBO. Grattan and the others, I'm sure, see some distinction between politely guiding players to send opinions to their NBOs and simply telling them to f-ck off, but from where I sit there's no practical difference at all, and the WBF should not be surprised when players react to such "guidance" accordingly. I'm not saying that it is unreasonable for the WBF to tell individual players with presumably idiosyncratic opinions about the laws to f-ck off, but it is patronizing and dishonest to pretend that individual players everywhere have access to the WBF's decision-making process through their NBOs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 20:01:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:01:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <000901c8109d$c602eed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c8109d$c602eed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman >> [nigel] >> >> I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for >> comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism >> might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could >> hardly do >> much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. >> >> [Jerry] >> >> Yes, I wish that too. Maybe it was not possible for some reason. > > It was released to NBOs. > > I suppose the anticipated volume of comments limited who should > receive the > draft versions. The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs. Two of those directors are close personal friends. Neither had seen (or been offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the PDF from ECatsBridge. Ordinary players don't stand a chance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 20:23:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:23:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <000a01c8109e$51135dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c8109e$51135dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:15 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>> The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask >>> whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would >>> not >>> have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense >>> of the original insufficient bid and correction. >> >> That's a very reasonable way to apply it, but I'm not sure I'd bet a >> large sum of money that it will be applied that way in practice. >> >> An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra >> information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For >> example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace >> exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, >> partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has >> to be >> one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the >> necessity of >> looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter >> interpretation. >> >> I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to >> discuss! > > Have you guys overlooked the new Law 27C2? Not at all, although if there's something new there I'm missing it; it looks like the old L27B1(b) reworded for clarity. In particular, it clarifies that TD should withhold judgment regarding damage until the end of play, but that was always the obvious intent. I don't see the relevance. However we choose to interpret "incorporates" in L27C1, we must apply that interpretation at the time the IB is made, directing that the auction continue either by L27C1 or by L27D. Only if and after we decide to allow the auction to continue under L27C1 is L27C2 even applicable, and in any case has no bearing on that decision. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 20:47:48 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:47:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <01aa01c810db$a4c2a100$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <01aa01c810db$a4c2a100$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <1879B14C-BB26-470B-953A-5E4C681E47F4@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > From: >> The main problem of >> dWS is that it deliberately hides from the opponents the fact that a >> wheel >> has come off. > > The opponents have no right to know that you are in the > middle of a misunderstanding. Of course not; nobody has suggested that they do. But they do have a right to certain information, and if they believe they can deduce from that information that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding they are fully entitled to do so (at their own risk, of course). To deliberately withhold information to which the opponents *are* entitled so as to deprive them of the opportunity to deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is cheating. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 17 21:18:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > >> [nigel] > >> > >> I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for > >> comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism > >> might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could > >> hardly do > >> much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. > >> > >> [Jerry] > >> > >> Yes, I wish that too. Maybe it was not possible for some reason. > > > > It was released to NBOs. > > > > I suppose the anticipated volume of comments limited who should > > receive the > > draft versions. > > The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament > directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs. Two of those > directors are close personal friends. Neither had seen (or been > offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the > PDF from ECatsBridge. Ordinary players don't stand a chance. Well, I suppose that says more about ACBL than about WBFLC? Without really knowing I am quite convinced that ACBL received their copies of the drafts as these became available? Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:32:34 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:32:34 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 17/10/2007 19:48:03 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: >To deliberately withhold information to which the >opponents *are* entitled so as to deprive them of the opportunity to >deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is >cheating. If the last word of the above paragraph means, as Mr Burn might say, "consistent with the actions of a cheat", then I agree with you. Nobody cheats, as we all know. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 17 22:21:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:21:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: +=+ Oh ton, please do not try to close Herman down. Everyone knows how utterly misguided are his arguments and his provocative debates are so helpful in drawing the fire away from more troublesome questions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION A. Appropriate Communication between Partners 1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. 2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick. B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them. 2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. E. Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Richard Hills: Okay, I could provocatively debate Herman De Wael's favourite Law, Law 73B1, and provocatively note that the 2007 Law 73B1 is significantly different in meaning from the 1997 Law 73B1. The old 1997 word "through" has been deleted, and replaced by the new 2007 phrase "by means such as". I could provocatively note that this change clearly invalidates the De Wael School, as now Law 73B1 has become clearly an anti-cheating Law. But I will not do so. And I will not provocatively assert that the De Wael School fails to achieve its aim of preventing UI, since even a truthful answer about system - when partner has not yet forgotten the system - gives partner UI that *you* have not yet forgotten the system, while a De Waelish false answer about the system - when partner has now forgotten the system - gives partner UI that *you* are on the same wavelength as him. So I will not provocatively Reveal to the World that the De Wael School has been demolished by the new 2007 Law 73B1, so Herman will be blissfully unaware that it is time to "Let's Twist Again, Like We Did Last Summer", and yet again twist this Inconvenient Truth in order to yet again reattempt to rejustify the utterly misguided De Wael School. No, rather than discuss the anti-cheating Law 73B1, I will instead ask some troublesome questions about the changes to its sister anti-cheating Law, Law 73B2. Doonesbury, Tuesday 29th May 1973: >Good news, kiddies! Time for another exclusive WBBY >"Watergate Profile"! Today's obituary - John Mitchell! > >John Mitchell, the former U.S. Attorney General, has in >recent weeks been repeatedly linked with both the >Watergate caper and its cover-up. > >It would be a disservice to Mr Mitchell and his character >to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could >lead one to conclude he's guilty! > >That's guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!! Richard Hills: Why has the word Guilty, Guilty, Guilty been deleted from Law 73B2? Why has "partnership risks expulsion" also been deleted? Could it be because such a risk is minimal? (Since the notorious cheats Mr Cokin and Mr Sion had their expulsion from the ACBL reversed, due to their simple step of merely deciding to hire a lawyer, thus causing the ACBL to settle out of court.) 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 Wed Oct 17 22:33:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:33:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 07:34 PM 16/10/2007, you wrote: >>> From: Eric Landau >>> The way to apply the new L27C(1) "incorporates" criteria is to ask >>> whether the insufficient bid conveyed any information which would >>> not >>> have been available had the substituted bid been made in the absense >>> of the original insufficient bid and correction. >> >> That's a very reasonable way to apply it, but I'm not sure I'd bet a >> large sum of money that it will be applied that way in practice. >> >> An interesting question is what will happen if there is extra >> information not "incorporated" but available to partner anyway. For >> example, in Eric's Blackwood example, the original IB shows one ace >> exactly, while the substituted call shows an odd number. Meanwhile, >> partner is looking at two or three aces, so the "odd number" has >> to be >> one. I think this could go either way, though perhaps the >> necessity of >> looking at a hand to make a ruling would force the stricter >> interpretation. >> >> I'm sure there will be lots of interesting questions like this one to >> discuss! > > I'm afraid that like Herman, I did not read the 1st page so I have > immediately started the new laws at my 4 clubs, so that I > will have to read them. > > I am still worried about my original example 1C (1S) 1H. > Do I have to offer the infractor either a negative double or > 2H without penalty, or both. The answer might be either, both or neither. Although the new law is rather more specific and less unambiguous than the old one, nobody said it would be easier to apply. You will need to determine the offenders' precise partnership agreements about the auctions 1C-P-1H (and that assumes that you have already determined that that is what the IBer thought he was doing), 1C-1S-X and 1C-1S-2H to make your ruling. Each potential substitute bid is evaluated independently of any other; whether you allow or disallow a double without penalty does not affect your decision as to whether to allow or disallow 2H. But the test is very simple: Does the IB give partner any information about the IBer's hand that he would not know from the substitute bid had it been made directly and properly? One ambiguity has already been pointed out to us (I apologize for forgetting by whom): Does "from the substitute bid" mean in isolation, or in combination with the contents of one's own hand? The latter seems fairer, but negates the widely accepted principle that a TD should be able to make a proper ruling at the table in mid- deal without looking at anyone's cards. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 22:41:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:41:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7064B669-98F8-46C9-8D6F-EF866D252022@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> It was released to NBOs. >>> >>> I suppose the anticipated volume of comments limited who should >>> receive the >>> draft versions. >> >> The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament >> directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs. Two of those >> directors are close personal friends. Neither had seen (or been >> offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the >> PDF from ECatsBridge. Ordinary players don't stand a chance. > > Well, I suppose that says more about ACBL than about WBFLC? > > Without really knowing I am quite convinced that ACBL received > their copies > of the drafts as these became available? What is says about the ACBL is, IMHO, unrepeatable in polite company. What it says about the WBFLC is that they have their collective head in the sand when it comes to the subject of the ACBL. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 22:49:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:49:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 17/10/2007 19:48:03 GMT Standard Time, > ehaa at starpower.net > writes: > >> To deliberately withhold information to which the >> opponents *are* entitled so as to deprive them of the opportunity to >> deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is >> cheating. > > If the last word of the above paragraph means, as Mr Burn might say, > "consistent with the actions of a cheat", then I agree with you. > Nobody cheats, as > we all know. To withhold information to which the opponents are entitled and thus to deprive them of the opportunity to deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is consistent with the actions of a cheat. To *deliberately* withhold information to which the opponents are entitled *so as* to deprive them of the opportunity to deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is cheating. Perhaps nobody does it, but I stand by my definition. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 22:53:26 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:53:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710171353wbe3aa58r31ffc65c97574bb3@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > One ambiguity has already been pointed out to us (I apologize for > forgetting by whom): Does "from the substitute bid" mean in > isolation, or in combination with the contents of one's own hand? > The latter seems fairer, but negates the widely accepted principle > that a TD should be able to make a proper ruling at the table in mid- > deal without looking at anyone's cards. > I am afraid I don't understand this. From a mathematical standpoint, my intuition at this moment says one's own hand cannot affect the issue. Would you be willing to give an example? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 17 23:19:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:19:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <7064B669-98F8-46C9-8D6F-EF866D252022@starpower.net> References: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <7064B669-98F8-46C9-8D6F-EF866D252022@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E10A718-F823-4762-8763-9A0DB2A062A0@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >>> On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> It was released to NBOs. >>>> >>>> I suppose the anticipated volume of comments limited who should >>>> receive the >>>> draft versions. >>> >>> The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament >>> directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs. Two of those >>> directors are close personal friends. Neither had seen (or been >>> offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the >>> PDF from ECatsBridge. Ordinary players don't stand a chance. >> >> Well, I suppose that says more about ACBL than about WBFLC? >> >> Without really knowing I am quite convinced that ACBL received >> their copies >> of the drafts as these became available? > > What is says about the ACBL is, IMHO, unrepeatable in polite company. > > What it says about the WBFLC is that they have their collective head > in the sand when it comes to the subject of the ACBL. According to the WBF and ACBL web sites, the current chairman of the latter's LC is also vice chairman of the former's. Also, there are three other members of the latter's LC on the former's LC. And at least one of those other members was on the drafting subcommittee. So it would seem that the ACBLLC, or part of it, if no one else in ACBL- land, was privy to the proposed changes as discussed by the WBFLC as a whole (before someone suggests I'm being accusatory here, I do *not* claim that anyone inappropriately "leaked" information to their NBO - or in this case, ZO). From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Oct 17 23:20:01 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:20:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: Message-ID: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > In a message dated 17/10/2007 17:35:19 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm > writes: > >>The opponents have no right to know that you are in the >>middle of a misunderstanding. > > I didn't say they did. But they do have the right to get the correct > explanation of your methods from each player. Yes, they have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75A. And they also have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75D2 ("must not in any manner"). They cannot obey both - because of the nature of the no-screens bridge they must break one or the other. If a player faces such a choice why shouldn't be he free to choose which one he is going to break? In either case breaking the law will not go unpunished. > Therefore if one player gives a wrong > explanation (which he is not allowed to give deliberately), then his or > her > partner must still give the correct explanation of your methods when he > or she > is asked. He must also avoid indicating "in any manner" that a misunderstanding occurred. So he can't do both so - see above. > If that is inconsistent, the opponents will know that a > misunderstanding has occurred. > > As for your remark that dWs makes it easier to cheat - it is quite the opposite. Traditional school makes life far easier for cheaters. I'll get back to that - for now let's forget cheating. Let's consider the following scenario, a very typical one. showing why as a player I very much prefer (by a mile!) to face opponents who follow dWS. It is easier to play against them than against players who believe in traditonal school (that doesn't make the traditional school illegal). Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner. Me and my partner know each other quite well but we are not a regular partnership and didn't have much time before the tournament to discuss our system. Your partner opens 1H and my partner overcalls 1NT. Now in Poland there are two schools - about one half treats the 1NT overcall as natural, the other half plays it as a two-suiter with 4S and 5+m. Your partner asks me for an explanation. Let's say I am a believer in the traditional school. Then, in order to comply with full disclosure, I'll have to say this: "In Poland, where I play, there are two schools - about one half of the players treats the 1NT overcall as natural, the other half plays it as a two-suiter with 4S and 5+m. We are not a regular partnership so I have a guess to make. My partner has two other regular partners, with one of them he plays it natural, I don't know how he plays it with another. On the other hand my partner knows that I normally play the 1NT overcall as showing 4S-5+m. It is true that we agreed to play simple bridge today but this convention is so popular in my country that I really don't know if this keep-it-simple rule applies here". Your partner listens to all that and bids 2S. Now you have a choice to make - is 2S a natural bid showing a weak hand with long spades (as over the natural 1NT overcall) or is it a cue-bid showing a hand with a heart fit (as you would play over the 1NT overcall showing spades)? Let's say that you pass 2S judging that in the light of the explanation 1NT is probably natural so 2S is weak. It turns out that partner bid 2S as a cue-bid because he judged the 4-5 option was more probable. You end up in 2S on a 3-2 fit while 6H is laydown. Now of course you will not get any redress from the TD - there is no law that says that a pair must know the meaning of any bid. You have been given the fullest, the most detailed and the most honest explanation of the 1NT bid. All partnership understanding has been revealed including all implicit agreements that might be relevant for you. Everything. So there has been no infraction, no redress. And you end up with egg on your face and a cold bottom on your scorecard. Now what if I am a follower of the dWs? I will simply tell you "1NT shows 4S and 5+m". Now if I get it right then you and your partner will certainly be on the same wavelength when it comes to the interpretation of the 2S bid. On the other hand if I guess wrong then this time the ruling will surely go in your favor - this time the TD will have no doubt that you _were_ misinformed so you will get the best probable score. That's why I very much prefer playing against opponents who tell me "this means X" instead of people who tell me stories like "it could be X or Y, I said I don't like X but I don't know if my veto is in force for this event." because in the second case they make _me and partner_ guess what our subsequent bids will mean. They make us pay for their own lack of preparation. In the "this means X" case the TD will adjust (if it turns to by Y and not X) but in the second one - well, they have fully disclosed their agreements or rather the fact that they don't have them. Full disclosure - no infraction. Back to villains and downright cheating - traditional school makes it possible to give murky, fuzzy explanations. full of "or's" and "perhap's" in cases where a player is pretty sure what his partner's bid means. And this kind of cheating is very, very hard to detect. Let's say that I am a cheat and I am pretty sure my partner's 1NT is natural - let's say 95% sure knowing my partner's preferences. I can still give you the long explanation above and how are you going to catch me? The TD won't help you. How is he to know that the story above is not exactly true? On the other hand the dWs is simple - if I say X and it is Y then it will become obvious for everyone after the hand is over. The TD will have a case of clear MI so the dWs pair never benefits. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaros?aw Drob, Przyjdziemy i Spie***ymy - poznaj kandydata! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bef From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Oct 17 23:30:42 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:30:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47163C55.7050008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> >> 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 >> > > Ton, I am surprised. > > You of all people I would have expected to grasp the more finer points > at stake here. > > I will cease - for now. > -- OK, so I was going to stay out of this thread, but instead propose to take it into a different direction. We all agree that there is a conflict between disclosure and UI, I hope. Most of us agree that the 1997 Laws tell us how to deal with it (I am not yet familiar enough with the new Laws to comment on them, but getting there). Some do not agree, and while I disagree vehemently with their creative interpretations of Law, there is still an underlying problem. Sometimes, when a question is argued vehemently for a long time, it's because you're asking the wrong question. So, let's ask a different question, which may have been asked in the many years I have been off of this list, but I wouldn't know about it: Is there a way for Herman to follow L75D2 as he feels he must, but without breaking any Laws? What happens if Herman makes David Burn's suggestion that we not hear partner's explanations a literal reality? People who believe that they cannot awaken Partner with UI simply carry around pads of paper, and write their explanations on it. They show these to the opponents, but not Partner. At the correct time in Law to reveal MI, based on who is declaring, partners exchange their notes and reveal any MI in their partner's explanations. Since these players will not see their partner's explanations at all during the auction, there will be very little UI or MI exchanged relative to verbal explanation. Written explanations without screens. The main trigger of Herman's MI, a misexplanation by partner, will not even be seen by him, only the opponents. There are several places where this won't work. Some people have difficulty writing (I have arthritis in my hands, but can still write). You can't use written explanations with visually impaired opponents. Writing the explanations will take time, and may slow the pair down. The mandatory alerts and announcements will still be present in the auction, and provide some UI. However, by simply writing their explanations, Herman and his partners can now fully and correctly disclose their agreements without providing UI to partner. The Laws do not demand verbal explanations, just full and accurate disclosure. My initial thought is that this allows Herman a way to fully disclose his agreements to the opponents without providing UI in the vast majority of situations where he has argued for MI instead of UI. Rather than picking and choosing which Laws to obey, Herman gets to obey all of them. Despite the flaws mentioned, and probably several I didn't think of, would something like this work? Hirsch Davis From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 23:48:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:48:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> Impressive contribution, Konrad! I agree with your points. I, too, really hate it when my opponents say, "it might be X and it might be Y," because my agreements are often quite different in the two cases. Seriously, how can one play bridge with such an answer early in the auction? I find it somewhat farcical to play with against someone using what MS seems to require in this kind of a case---especially when the confusion is early in the auction and we may well want to keep bidding. This was one of the issues I asked David Burn to address a few days ago, but alas, my wish there may well be doomed to fail. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 00:24:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:24:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Impressive contribution, Konrad! > > I agree with your points. I, too, really hate it when my opponents > say, "it might be X and it might be Y," because my agreements are > often quite different in the two cases. Seriously, how can one play > bridge with such an answer early in the auction? I find it somewhat > farcical to play with against someone using what MS seems to require > in this kind of a case---especially when the confusion is early in the > auction and we may well want to keep bidding. Not so impressive. If the agreements really are that both alternatives are possible then the explanation is OK (subject to whatever regulations on ambiguous agreements might be in force), but if the agreement is one and just one of the alternatives stated (and the player doesn't know which) then the ruling shall be that he has given an incorrect or incomplete explanation of the call. Regards Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Oct 18 01:12:47 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:12:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <004e01c81113$3b43a980$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Yes, they have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75A. And they also have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75D2 ("must not in any manner"). HD: 75A is "must be fully and freely available" 75D2 is "nor may he indicate in any manner" If you look at the Laws Preface, "may not" is a very strong negative imperative, but not as strong as a "must" imperative. Accordingly, should these appear to be in conflict, 75A is the stronger imperative. Violation of 75A would normally be treated as the greater offense. Hirsch Davis From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 01:22:46 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:22:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > If the agreements really are that both alternatives are possible then the > explanation is OK (subject to whatever regulations on ambiguous agreements > might be in force), but if the agreement is one and just one of the > alternatives stated (and the player doesn't know which) then the ruling > shall be that he has given an incorrect or incomplete explanation of the > call. > Konrad was discussing the second case you list. The agreement is not that pard can have either hand. The agreement is either X or Y, but explainer does not know which. With respect to the second case in your paragraph, you wrote "if the agreement is one and just one of the alternatives stated (and the player doesn't know which) then the ruling shall be that he has given an incorrect or incomplete explanation of the call." This makes MS look better than I realized---if it really happens. I admit that I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." Can you cite any example where this ruling is made in this kind of situation? An example could be in a casebook. Though I prefer to get my good score at the table without a director call, if what you describe really happens as often as it should, it does bolster MS. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 01:34:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:34:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710171634x61a27a0cu9e62355e3f066556@mail.gmail.com> > 5. Mr. Kooijman recorded that the subcommittee had an intention of > preparing an appendix of guidance on and illustrations of some of the > more interesting matters in the 2007 Code. This would not have the > force of law but would be helpful, it was believed, to Directors > confronted by problematic situations. Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have the force of law" in this context? Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of law? Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 01:57:36 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:57:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <01aa01c810db$a4c2a100$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <1879B14C-BB26-470B-953A-5E4C681E47F4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c81119$b539fc70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Sigh. Trying again... A lot of words have been wasted, when the only relevant fact is that it is illegal to give MI (Law 75B states that it is an infraction even when it is accidental) and it is not illegal to transmit UI. This discussion, and its endless forerunners, reminds me of scientists in the US agreeing to debate Intelligent Designists. It makes it look as if the kooky idea is a valid point of view, and ignorant people may decide that it is the correct one. I have a solution, though -- 1. Any mention of the dWS in a thread should be ignored. 2. Herman should play simpler methods. Cheers Stefanie Rohan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> From: >>> The main problem of >>> dWS is that it deliberately hides from the opponents the fact that a >>> wheel >>> has come off. >> >> The opponents have no right to know that you are in the >> middle of a misunderstanding. > > Of course not; nobody has suggested that they do. But they do have a > right to certain information, and if they believe they can deduce > from that information that you are in the middle of a > misunderstanding they are fully entitled to do so (at their own risk, > of course). To deliberately withhold information to which the > opponents *are* entitled so as to deprive them of the opportunity to > deduce from it that you are in the middle of a misunderstanding is > cheating. > > > 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 Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 18 02:00:03 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:00:03 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 17/10/2007 22:26:01 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm writes: >Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner. >Me and my partner know each other quite well but we are not a regular >partnership and didn't have much time before the tournament to >discuss our system. Then there is no problem if we are in England, as I will have already called the director because you do not both have identical complete convention cards, and forced you to play simple system with no conventions. In practice, of course, I do not treat our Polish visitors in this way, and the ones I have met do not give the type of answer you do. I do not know either what the sanction is in Poland for not having two complete convention cards. I prefer by a mile the opponent to state his belief of the agreed method - as best as they can, so of course I welcome the extended explanation you propose to give when you genuinely do not know. In your example where one side is playing a Raptor 1NT overcall and the other a natural 1NT overcall the 2S will be fully explained as well as either a transfer to clubs, weak with spades, or just competitive, by the partner of the 2S bidder, based on his understanding of the meaning of the bid in their system, with the same qualifications. Taken to an extreme, all bids could have an almost infinite number of explanations, where the two players do not even have the time to decide whether they are playing Polish Club, Precision, 5-card majors etc etc. This is up to the SO to sort out and decide that the players are forced to play a simple system or complete a full card. And it is irrelevant whether you prefer your opponent to be a "dWS responder". The world and his dog have decided that this approach is not the correct one. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 18 02:29:33 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:29:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47163C55.7050008@skynet.be> <001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <01f001c8111d$f59eadc0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" > What happens if Herman makes David Burn's suggestion that we not hear > partner's explanations a literal reality? In the old days we used to ask partner to step away from the table while we answered a non-trivial question. That seemed to work fine. Of course there were fewer questions then. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 02:51:01 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:51:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer > about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it does not disclose the actual agreement. If a player, given "it could be either one, but I don't know which", acts on the assumption it's A, and it turns out to have been B, he has been damaged by MI because he was not told it was B. So if I were given an explanation like this, I wouldn't worry about it - I would expect the TD to give me redress if I guessed wrong, whichever way I guessed. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 18 02:42:21 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:42:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <020f01c81120$c533ef80$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and > mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the > reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction > of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: > > Individual players wishing to express opinions have a better chance > of conveying those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece > of paper, put it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they > send them to their NBO. Indeed. I have sent suggestions to the ACBL, but never get a reply. For instance, a suggestion to the LC regarding Procedural Penalties. An attorney on the committee agreed with the legal principle involved, but I didn't get a reply until I asked for it from the chairman. He said only short suggestions get noticed at all, the explanation I provided with mine was too long and was therefore ignored. Another suggestion was to the C&C that finals of big NABC+ pair games switch only half the pairs for the second session, providing more comparisons between pairs. That seemed reasonable enough to deserve a reply, but I received none. The excellent series on filling out an ACBL convention card, "Duplicate Decisions," had a number of omissions and errors, some nitpicking, some serious. I received no reply to my submission of suggested changes. I'm through wasting my time with these people. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 03:00:00 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:00:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002801c81122$35dc4f10$a194ed30$@com> [KC] Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner. Me and my partner know each other quite well but we are not a regular partnership and didn't have much time before the tournament to discuss our system. [Gampas] In your example where one side is playing a Raptor 1NT overcall and the other a natural 1NT overcall the 2S will be fully explained as well as either a transfer to clubs, weak with spades, or just competitive, by the partner of the 2S bidder, based on his understanding of the meaning of the bid in their system, with the same qualifications. [DALB] I think that in Konrad's example, the 2S bid was from the partner of the 1H opener, not the responder to the 1NT overcall. That is, in this auction: West North East South 1H 1NT (1) ? (1) "He may have spades and a minor, or he may have a strong balanced hand - I don't know." East knows that West won't know what 2S means (or indeed what anything else means, such as 2D if that would be forcing over a Raptor 1NT but competitive over a natural 1NT). East-West should of course take up transfers over an opponent's 1NT overcall whatever it means, so that they will not have this problem, but this approach may not have reached some parts of Poland yet. As Gampas says, there is a legal remedy against opponents who do not play the same system (at least, there is in England - there may not be in Poland). But the legal remedy is likely to prevent people from doing what they have come to the club and paid good money to do: play bridge. That is why I have some sympathy with the notion that the dWS is on balance more likely to permit a particular hand to be completed without recourse to the forces of law, when the dWS explanation fortuitously matches partner's cards. Should the situation arise in practice, I would have no objection if the TD were to say to North-South: "In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly." That way, there would be as much chance of completing the hand as under the dWS approach, and perhaps everyone will get their table money's worth. Of course, such a procedure is in breach of several laws, but it does not seem to me inequitable or impractical. I hope that what I have written goes some way to answering Jerry Fusselman's point; my apologies for having overlooked it earlier. David Burn London, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 03:01:25 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:01:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Then there is no problem if we are in England, as I will have > already called > the director because you do not both have identical complete > convention > cards, and forced you to play simple system with no conventions. No, you won't. :-) You can call the director, but you can't force either the director or your opponents to do anything. Whether the TD requires this pair to play a simple system is at *his* discretion, absent an SO regulation more specific than the Orange Book. See OB 4A2. The EBU Simple System Card *does* contain conventions (Strong 2C opening and Stayman, to name two). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 03:06:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:06:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <020f01c81120$c533ef80$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <020f01c81120$c533ef80$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:42 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I'm through wasting my time with these people. "*We* are the telephone company. *We* are omnipotent." - Ernestine the Telephone Operator (Lily Tomlin). Of course, that was before AT&T was broken up, proving Ernestine wrong. :-) From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 03:11:06 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:11:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47163C55.7050008@skynet.be> <001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <002901c81123$c3003f40$4900bdc0$@com> [HD] What happens if Herman makes David Burn's suggestion that we not hear partner's explanations a literal reality? People who believe that they cannot awaken Partner with UI simply carry around pads of paper, and write their explanations on it. [DALB] By coincidence, this morning I picked up an old Bridge World magazine (February 2004). In the Editorial, Jeff Rubens suggested exactly such a procedure. Indeed, he proposed the use of a "communication card" on which were written the numbers from 1 to 40, the suit symbols, and terms such as "hcp", "non-forcing", "no agreement" and so on. Playing with screens the procedure as Hirsch describes it is exactly what happens. Were such a proposal actually to be introduced, of course, everyone would complain like fury. Just as they did about bidding boxes. In my student days, a group of us created a "post-mortem" card with expressions such as "sorry", "you cretin", "partner", "I should have played", "a diamond", "with the next-door neighbour's cat instead of you", and the like. They became quite popular. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 03:27:34 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:27:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002a01c81126$1009b440$301d1cc0$@com> "O Moses, give us all a rest!" (G K Chesterton, Ballade of a Book Reviewer) [HdW] I choose to follow L75D2, so I believe I have no choice either! [from another post] No, the player should follow his L16 duties at all times. And yes, those duties supersede the ones in L75D2 to not indicate that an error has been made. [DALB] We may at last be making some progress. Obviously, Herman, you do not actually choose to follow L75D2 - you will choose not to follow it if you are under what you (correctly) consider to be the stronger provisions of L16. The view of the MS is that people should not follow L75D2 if they are bound by the stronger provisions of Laws 16, 20F, 40A, 40B and 75A. Perhaps that is why, in the 2007 Laws, the wording "may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" no longer appears in Law 75; instead, a player "must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues". David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 18 04:01:46 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:01:46 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 18/10/2007 02:01:44 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: You can call the director, but you can't force either the director or your opponents to do anything. Whether the TD requires this pair to play a simple system is at *his* discretion, absent an SO regulation more specific than the Orange Book. See OB 4A2. Yet OB4A1 states : "Pairs are required to have two convention cards. Both must contain the same information. At the beginning of each round they will be exchanged with those of the opponents." So what happens if I insist on this being applied? The TD either makes them write them out or provides the Simple System cards. And I agree that Simple System does contain some simple conventions. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 18 04:18:15 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:18:15 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 18/10/2007 01:57:20 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: >I think that in Konrad's example, the 2S bid was from the partner of the 1H >opener, not the responder to the 1NT overcall. That is, in this auction: >West North East South >1H 1NT (1) ? >(1) "He may have spades and a minor, or he may have a strong balanced hand - >I don't know." Yes, I did wrongly read it as a 2S response to 1NT, which would also create a problem of a different type. My mistake. >Should the situation arise in practice, I would have no objection if the TD >were to say to North-South: "In the circumstances, I will allow you to >select which of the possibilities you are going to believe, and bid >accordingly." I would agree with something along those lines as the only practical solution. An opponent recently said "No agreement" when his partner opened 1NT, and my partner called the director indicating that our methods, as with many pairs, were different over a strong NT to those over a weak NT. The director ruled that the obligation to state the NT range was absolute and the opener's partner had to give a range (or play could grind to a halt); if the explanation was wrong, there would also be misinformation. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 18 05:00:30 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:00:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4716CC4E.6060800@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] I agree with [Konrad]'s points. I, too, really hate it when my opponents say, "it might be X and it might be Y," because my agreements are often quite different in the two cases. Seriously, how can one play bridge with such an answer early in the auction? I find it somewhat farcical to play with against someone using what MS seems to require in this kind of a case---especially when the confusion is early in the auction and we may well want to keep bidding. [Nigel] Most Bridge legislation is so sophisticated as to be incomprehensible to ordinary players. Hence we look forward to elucidation from the likes of Hirsch Davis, Konrad Ciborowski and Jerry Fusselman, because we flatter ourselves that we understand some of what they say. The WBFLC could drastically simplify disclosure laws in ways often debated in BLML. For example... Herman de Wael suggests "When unsure what partner's call means, then you should try to guess what partner thinks it means". If law-makers don't like Herman's interpretation, why don't they clearly outlaw it? I proposed "you must try to guess what your agreement really is" Now, however, I prefer Richard Hill's suggestion "If you don't know, then offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the meaning of his own call." If the law-book specified Richard's protocol, it would almost never be be invoked because players' memories would then improve, immediately and dramatically :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 05:37:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:37:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171634x61a27a0cu9e62355e3f066556@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have >>the force of law" in this context? >> >>Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of >>law? Introduction (final paragraph): >For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions >that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context >clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and >the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa. Richard Hills: So the Introduction and the Definitions have the force of Law, which is why I have dubbed them collectively as "Law Number Zero". But the Index and the Preface (since not mentioned in the above paragraph) do not intrinsically have the force of Law. Preface (fourth paragraph): >Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise >and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new >Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, >the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the >introduction of the "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees", to >which attention is drawn. Richard Hills: Since it is the non-force-of-Law Preface which recommends the WBF Code of Practice, then the WBF CoP does not intrinsically have the force of Law. However, it is possible that a Regulating Authority may adopt part or all of the WBF CoP as one of its regulations. For example, the English Bridge Union has adopted most of the WBF CoP, but the EBU has specifically excluded some WBF CoP clauses from operating in events held under EBU auspices. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 18 06:12:31 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:12:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4716DD2F.1040908@ntlworld.com> I'm trying to follow the discussion about the new laws that apply to illegal calls (like calls out of turn, insufficient bids, and illegal doubles and redoubles). Unfortunately most is above my head :( A practical question that interests system-mongers is whether it is legal to change the meaning of a your call depending on whether you condone or reject opponent's earlier illegal call. On RGB, most agreed with David Stevenson, who deemed it legal. It seems that many top pairs benefit from detailed agreements. A dissenting minority -- mainly me as usual :( -- thought it should be illegal -- and that a way to to remove temptation would be to withdraw the option to accept an illegal call. Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 18 06:27:50 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:27:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <01aa01c810db$a4c2a100$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><1879B14C-BB26-470B-953A-5E4C681E47F4@starpower.net> <000201c81119$b539fc70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <006f01c81140$000b9f80$739787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > Sigh. Trying again... > > A lot of words have been wasted, when the only relevant > fact is that it is illegal to give MI (Law 75B states that it is > an infraction even when it is accidental) and it is not illegal > to transmit UI. This discussion, and its endless forerunners, > reminds me of scientists in the US agreeing to debate > Intelligent Designists. It makes it look as if the kooky idea > is a valid point of view, and ignorant people may decide > that it is the correct one. > > I have a solution, though -- 1. Any mention of the dWS > in a thread should be ignored. 2. Herman should play > simpler methods. > > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > +=+ Ah, dear Stefanie, what a spoilsport you are. You would diminish all our expectations of Law 40B6(b) adjustments. That Law lays an absolute requirement on the Director, no 'ifs and buts'. I do not fear that 'ignorant people' will be led astray by Herman - if they ever read his words it would be strange, but should they do so they would almost certainly note the absence of any authority on the laws writing in support of him; and Directors might complain that you would be depriving them of the pleasure of applying Law 72B1 procedural penalties to his side. But, of course, you are right as to which is an infraction and which is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 18 06:48:10 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:48:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? Message-ID: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> The new laws about kibitzers seem to be clearer :) Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For example... [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 18 07:01:53 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com><200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com><00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > > Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and > mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the > reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction > of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: > > Individual players wishing to express opinions have a better chance > of conveying those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece > of paper, put it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they > send them to their NBO. > > Grattan and the others, I'm sure, see some distinction between > politely guiding players to send opinions to their NBOs and simply > telling them to ---- off, but from where I sit there's no practical > difference at all, and the WBF should not be surprised when players > react to such "guidance" accordingly. > +=+ Opportunity given to some 116 NBOs* to comment on our drafts as they were in November could well have landed us (me) with an indigestible problem in collating them law-by-law for presentation to the DSC. As it was, the responses returned from NBOs were not so extensive that I was unable to sort them in that way and communicate them to colleagues. Offering the opportunity to bridge players generally to present their views direct would have opened up an unacceptable risk of clogging to the procedure, and in any case it was proper that players should present opinions to their NBOs for consideration and influence upon the replies NBOs would send. If players feel that their NBO is deaf to their thoughts players should use the ballot box to encourage greater attention for their correspondence; we do not determine their representation or the corporate structure of the organizations of which they are members. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* plus eight Zonal Organizations and the Portland Club) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 07:56:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:56:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <020f01c81120$c533ef80$6501a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >Indeed. I have sent suggestions to the ACBL, but never >get a reply. Richard Hills: I once sent a suggestion to the designated person in the ACBL that the ACBL's own website stated should receive the suggestion. My suggestion was that the ACBL might usefully adopt the EBU regulation on an adjusted score for the unusual (but not rare) infraction of using an illegal convention. I know that the ACBL's designated person received the email, since my email was sent with a return receipt. But that ACBL designated person never bothered to have the courtesy to send an acknowledgement that my email was "under active consideration" or even merely "under consideration". Yes Minister, "The Official Visit": Jim Hacker: What am I going to do with all this correspondence? Bernard Woolley: You do realize you don't actually have to, Minister. Jim Hacker: Don't I? Bernard Woolley: Not if you don't want to, we can draft an official reply. Jim Hacker: What's an official reply? Bernard Woolley: It just says "The Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter" and we say something like "The matter is under consideration", or even if we feel so inclined "under active consideration". Jim Hacker: What's the difference? Bernard Woolley: Well, "under consideration" means we've lost the file, "under active consideration" means we're trying to find it. 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 Oct 18 07:39:23 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:39:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net><6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4716DD2F.1040908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001901c8114c$019b70d0$739787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > I'm trying to follow the discussion about the new laws that apply to > illegal calls (like calls out of turn, insufficient bids, and illegal > doubles and redoubles). Unfortunately most is above my head :( > > A practical question that interests system-mongers is whether it is > legal to change the meaning of a your call depending on whether you > condone or reject opponent's earlier illegal call. On RGB, most agreed > with David Stevenson, who deemed it legal. It seems that many top > pairs benefit from detailed agreements. > > A dissenting minority -- mainly me as usual :( -- thought it should be > illegal -- and that a way to to remove temptation would be to withdraw > the option to accept an illegal call. > > Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on > in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? > +=+ The laws give RAs power to regulate.(Law 40B3) +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 08:27:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:27:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a torch." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'." LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: 1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills: The second-worst Law in the 1997 Lawbook was the 1997 Law 71C (the worst by a country mile was the 1997 Law 25B). Not only: (a) did Law 71C contain a blatant internal contradiction (highlighting the fallacy of the late Edgar Kaplan's predilection for unnecessary secrecy before springing a "fait accompli" Lawbook upon The Bridge World, since insufficient eyeballs proofread the 1997 Lawbook before publication), and (b) did the WBF Laws Committee reverse the previous 1987 policy when interpreting the ambiguity, but (c) the 1987 policy was the obvious way to interpret the 1997 Law 71C as written (both David Burn and Sven Pran fell into that trap), and (d) the WBF LC refused to order a reprint of the 1997 Lawbook nor even the world-wide publication of an erratum slip in the WBF Newsletter, instead (e) merely publishing a "Beware of the leopard" interpretation in a 1997 minute which was not even added to the WBF website until some years later. ;-) The good news is that, after an infinitesimal wait of a mere ten years, the WBF has speedily published a new Law 71 written with concise common-sense. 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 Oct 18 08:36:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:36:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >We all agree that there is a conflict >between disclosure and UI, I hope. Richard Hills: No. 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 Oct 18 08:48:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:48:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >I, too, really hate it when my opponents >say, "it might be X and it might be Y," >because my agreements are often quite >different in the two cases. [snip] >This was one of the issues I asked David >Burn to address a few days ago, but alas, >my wish there may well be doomed to fail. Richard Hills: If David Burn had the copious spare time that I do, David might mention that what Nigel Guthrie has erroneously dubbed "Richard's protocol" is now included in the 2007 Lawbook. Law 20F1: .....Except on the **instruction of the Director** replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question..... Richard Hills: The specific 2007 phrase "instruction of the Director" replaces the ambiguous 1997 word "normally". 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 Thu Oct 18 08:59:49 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:59:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171634x61a27a0cu9e62355e3f066556@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Good question Ferry, This seems kind of a semantic problem. Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise, discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be close to that famous force. This is less so for the Code of Practise, which originaly was written for the WBF and its tournaments. And some of the decisions taken got the strength of force, for example the interpretation of the footnote in law 12, giving chief TD's the authority to adjust scores as appealcommittees can do. And when an nbo with 'force' adopts this code it gets the status of regulation (law) in its jurisdiction, I think. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2007 1:35 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" > 5. Mr. Kooijman recorded that the subcommittee had an intention of > preparing an appendix of guidance on and illustrations of some of the > more interesting matters in the 2007 Code. This would not have the > force of law but would be helpful, it was believed, to Directors > confronted by problematic situations. Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have the force of law" in this context? Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of law? Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Oct 18 08:59:49 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:59:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171634x61a27a0cu9e62355e3f066556@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Good question Ferry, This seems kind of a semantic problem. Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise, discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be close to that famous force. This is less so for the Code of Practise, which originaly was written for the WBF and its tournaments. And some of the decisions taken got the strength of force, for example the interpretation of the footnote in law 12, giving chief TD's the authority to adjust scores as appealcommittees can do. And when an nbo with 'force' adopts this code it gets the status of regulation (law) in its jurisdiction, I think. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2007 1:35 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" > 5. Mr. Kooijman recorded that the subcommittee had an intention of > preparing an appendix of guidance on and illustrations of some of the > more interesting matters in the 2007 Code. This would not have the > force of law but would be helpful, it was believed, to Directors > confronted by problematic situations. Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have the force of law" in this context? Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of law? Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Oct 18 09:02:43 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:02:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Seems that Richard has similar ideas as I have. Of course that does not mean those ideas to have the force of law, but .... ton Jerry Fusselman: >>Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have the >>force of law" in this context? >> >>Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of law? Introduction (final paragraph): >For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that >follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context clearly >dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine >includes the feminine, and vice versa. Richard Hills: So the Introduction and the Definitions have the force of Law, which is why I have dubbed them collectively as "Law Number Zero". But the Index and the Preface (since not mentioned in the above paragraph) do not intrinsically have the force of Law. Preface (fourth paragraph): >Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and >experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by >the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals >process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the "Code >of Practice for Appeals Committees", to which attention is drawn. Richard Hills: Since it is the non-force-of-Law Preface which recommends the WBF Code of Practice, then the WBF CoP does not intrinsically have the force of Law. However, it is possible that a Regulating Authority may adopt part or all of the WBF CoP as one of its regulations. For example, the English Bridge Union has adopted most of the WBF CoP, but the EBU has specifically excluded some WBF CoP clauses from operating in events held under EBU auspices. 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Oct 18 09:10:14 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:10:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <4716DD2F.1040908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Guthrie asked: Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? ton: Why is the desert of doubt the playing field when local legislation is asked for? Yes, we made this 'local' legislation. ------------------ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 18 09:07:21 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:07:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu><471574CD.20703@nhcc.net><6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2b1e598b0710171353wbe3aa58r31ffc65c97574bb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004b01c81156$f7ff9140$739787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > On 10/17/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> One ambiguity has already been pointed out to us (I apologize for >> forgetting by whom): Does "from the substitute bid" mean in >> isolation, or in combination with the contents of one's own hand? >> The latter seems fairer, but negates the widely accepted principle >> that a TD should be able to make a proper ruling at the table in mid- >> deal without looking at anyone's cards. >> > > I am afraid I don't understand this. From a mathematical standpoint, > my intuition at this moment says one's own hand cannot affect the > issue. > +=+ Neither, surely, does the hand of the player who has corrected his insufficient bid. It is irrelevant what he has in his hand. The relevant questions are what the insufficient bid meant (determine the player's intention and examine System Card) and what the substituted call means (see System Card). The DSC discussed its view that no need should be laid upon the Director here to look into any player's hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 18 09:17:55 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:17:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <471708A3.90800@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> The _without design_ falls away once you acccept that the dWS actions >>> are acceptible. Now, you DO have the choice (basically between lying >>> and speaking the truth, true) >>> >> What choice? The law tells me what to do, so I do it. Choice is not >> involved. Since I have, in fact, no choice (since I am bound by th law), >> there is no design on my part. And don`t tell me I could choose to break >> the law. This is not how anything governed by rules is played. >> Deliberate rulebreaking is out of the question. >> >> > > Indeed Matthias, and you've made it easy on me by not mentioning a law > number in here. I can simply insert L75D2 and this sentence could be > mine entirely. > > I choose to follow L75D2, so I believe I have no choice either! > > The difference is that the governing body has told anyone who was willing to listen that giving UI while answering a question is not an infraction, while giving MI always is an infraction. As I said above: choice is not involved. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 18 09:25:05 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:25:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card References: <200710161554.l9GFsWiv009783@cfa.harvard.edu><47156FF2.6030805@nhcc.net> <011a01c810e0$d5d93600$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <005801c81158$05f389e0$739787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Law 40B2(c) - opponents' system card >>> From: "Grattan Endicott" >>> I can only plead that the two of us who were doing last minute >>> proof reading for Anna in Shanghai were totally whacked - >> (Willner) >> Just let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work >> that everyone involved has done. > (Probst) > The committee has done better than just inventing the camel. > Well done. >> +=+ High praise indeed. The committee did work hard - and between meetings it is not easy to communicate effectively with a timespan of nineteen hours between our earliest riser and the last to get out of bed. In Shanghai there was a prodigious effort to look at everything anyone was still uneasy about. I take my hat off to my colleagues for their diligence. Of course, the laws are still not perfect since [ :-) ] I did not get my way in everything. Yet, in the end I was able to feel that overall we had done a sound job, that much was clearer than before and that the novelties introduced are improvements (even if the chairman's hint at increased demand for perceptive directing is justified). ~ G ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 09:36:34 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:36:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." > > Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. > > For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't > know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I > have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it > does not disclose the actual agreement. Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have no idea what it is? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaros?aw Drob, Przyjdziemy i Spie***ymy - poznaj kandydata! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bef From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 09:48:47 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:48:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: Message-ID: <042d01c8115b$50e96bb0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > In a message dated 18/10/2007 01:57:20 GMT Standard Time, > dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > >>I think that in Konrad's example, the 2S bid was from the partner of the >>1H >>opener, not the responder to the 1NT overcall. That is, in this auction: > >>West North East South >>1H 1NT (1) ? > >>(1) "He may have spades and a minor, or he may have a strong balanced >>hand - >>I don't know." > > Yes, I did wrongly read it as a 2S response to 1NT, which would also > create > a problem of a different type. My mistake. > >>Should the situation arise in practice, I would have no objection if the >>TD >>were to say to North-South: "In the circumstances, I will allow you to >>select which of the possibilities you are going to believe, and bid >>accordingly." > > I would agree with something along those lines as the only practical > solution. Practical - yes. Only that, as David has pointed out, it is illegal. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz najwiekszy absurd wyborczy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1c12 From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 09:58:59 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:58:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: Message-ID: <042e01c8115c$bddd9ce0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > In a message dated 17/10/2007 22:26:01 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm > writes: > >>Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner. >>Me and my partner know each other quite well but we are not a regular >>partnership and didn't have much time before the tournament to >>discuss our system. > > Then there is no problem if we are in England, as I will have already > called > the director because you do not both have identical complete convention > cards, and forced you to play simple system with no conventions. In > practice, of > course, I do not treat our Polish visitors in this way, and the ones I > have > met do not give the type of answer you do. I do not know either what the > sanction is in Poland for not having two complete convention cards. Even if people play a simple system there will be numerous auctions when people will have no idea if their partner's bid is forcing or not, or whether is shows 4 or 5 cards, about their partner's strength and so on and son. Remember - we are not talking about high level bridge here (because high level bridge is played almost exclusively with screens). We are talking about club level or popular tournaments where about 75% of pairs don't even have agreements about first round auctions - they don't know if a double raise by advancer (or sometimes even responder) is invitational or pre-emptive, they don't know if they play Drury as advancer, even if they do they do they still don't know what version, they don't know if they play "system on" after the 1NT opening is doubled and so forth. They can hardly play bridge at all. And their slam zone auctions are usually completely random so almost every time you ask you get "4C is probably a cue-bid though it may a a fragment bid, or perhaps it shows shortness, I don't really know, we haven't discussed it" so very often you end up defending blind. If I were to call the TD every time my opponent is not able to explain his partner's bid to my satisfaction I would be calling him every three rounds or so. > > Taken to an extreme, all bids could have an almost infinite number of > explanations, where the two players do not even have the time to decide > whether > they are playing Polish Club, Precision, 5-card majors etc etc. This is up > to > the SO to sort out and decide that the players are forced to play a simple > system or complete a full card. And how exactly does the fact that the SO may ammend the MS by adding more regulations make the dWs illegal? > > And it is irrelevant whether you prefer your opponent to be a "dWS > responder". The world and his dog have decided that this approach is not > the correct > one. Come on. Even the ancient Greeks knew the fallacy of the argumentum ad populum. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rusz pupe na wybory! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 10:26:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:26:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002a01c81126$1009b440$301d1cc0$@com> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> <002a01c81126$1009b440$301d1cc0$@com> Message-ID: <471718CE.8090403@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > "O Moses, give us all a rest!" > > (G K Chesterton, Ballade of a Book Reviewer) > > [HdW] > > I choose to follow L75D2, so I believe I have no choice either! > > [from another post] > > No, the player should follow his L16 duties at all times. > And yes, those duties supersede the ones in L75D2 to not indicate that an > error has been made. > > [DALB] > > We may at last be making some progress. Obviously, Herman, you do not > actually choose to follow L75D2 - you will choose not to follow it if you > are under what you (correctly) consider to be the stronger provisions of > L16. > > The view of the MS is that people should not follow L75D2 if they are bound > by the stronger provisions of Laws 16, 20F, 40A, 40B and 75A. Perhaps that > is why, in the 2007 Laws, the wording "may not indicate in any manner that a > mistake has been made" no longer appears in Law 75; instead, a player "must > do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues". > I do not see any difference between the two. Words like "in any manner" have been cut from the laws because they bring nothing new. Rather, I think the new wording strengthens my case, by the addition (in words rather than silent) that this obligation lasts throughout the auction. Also, I do not see any "unless opponents ask a direct question", nor any other exception. Furthermore, I don't see why such an exception should be needed. The lawmakers clearly feel that giving UI is worse than correcting MI, so why should that change if a lazy opponent asks a question? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 10:31:53 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:31:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <004e01c81113$3b43a980$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <045201c81161$5635b780$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > > > Yes, they have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75A. > And they also have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75D2 > ("must not in any manner"). > > HD: > > 75A is "must be fully and freely available" > 75D2 is "nor may he indicate in any manner" > > If you look at the Laws Preface, "may not" is a very strong negative > imperative, but not as strong as a "must" imperative. Non sequitur. Even if this were the case (and I'm not sure it is - the Preface is not very clear about it) you have only proven that for breaking L75A I will be penalized more often than for breaking L75D2. So? It is still my choice as a player which poison I am going to take and how often, isn't it?. In a sense I'm grateful for you contribution - you have just proven that the opponents are better off playing against someone who follows the dWs - this is what I have been saying all along. Even more so because a violation of L75A is in 99% of cases trivially easy to detect - I told my opponents that my partner has X and he has Y so even beginners can catch it. Breaking L75D2 immediately gives partner UI - and the use of UI much more often goes undetected - very often the opponents don't even realize how the UI from the explanation can help the offenders to land on their feet. This can be quite subtle at times. If your partner tells Mrs Guggenheim that your 2D bid shows 5+H and you have 5+D and a singleton heart instead then even she will know that you have committed an infraction. While in about 80% of cases Mrs Guggenheim is completely incapable of realizing that someone's bid was caused by the fact that his partner's explanation woke him up. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From mustikka at charter.net Thu Oct 18 10:35:43 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:35:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." > > Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. > > For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't > know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I > have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it > does not disclose the actual agreement. Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have no idea what it is? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland Exactly. The plain answer is "We have no agreement on 1NT overcall" . Anything else that you invent on the spot for an explanation, is MI, and is not even answering the question [no matter how it may have been phrased] which is: *What is your partnership agreement on 1NT overcall* From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 18 10:36:53 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:36:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <042e01c8115c$bddd9ce0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <042e01c8115c$bddd9ce0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <200710180836.AA11091@geller204.nifty.com> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> And it is irrelevant whether you prefer your opponent to be a "dWS >> responder". The world and his dog have decided that this approach is not >> the correct >> one. > > >Come on. Even the ancient Greeks knew the fallacy of the argumentum ad >populum. Yes, but the problem is the rest of us have to suffer through argumentum ad nauseam. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 10:37:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:37:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <042d01c8115b$50e96bb0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000001c81162$1a6c9510$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ............. > >> Should the situation* arise in practice, I would have no > >> objection if the TD were to say to North-South: > >> "In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the > >> possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly." *A player giving two or more alternative explanations for a call but being unable to tell which alternative is the correct one. > > > > I would agree with something along those lines as the only practical > > solution. > > Practical - yes. Only that, as David has pointed out, it is illegal. I noticed David's allegation that such procedure violated several laws and therefore was illegal, but I have a serious problem with this allegation. Exactly which laws should be violated by such procedure? I would in a case like that rule Law 21B3: Call based on misinformation from an opponent, too late to change call. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 10:47:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:47:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000101c81163$91493e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ................ > Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have > no idea what it is? Of course you cannot. But then you have failed to comply with Law 75C which implies that you have given misinformation (even though you have given an honest reply). Only if you can prove that you have no agreements on the actual situation can you avoid responsibility for opponents' damage caused by their resulting ignorance of your (assumed) agreements. It is as simple as that. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 18 10:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > In David's example, the auction 4NT-5H-X would have revealed that > East holds one ace, and the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed the same > information; L27C1 applies. But if the double had been DEPO rather > than D0P1, 4NT-5H-X would only have shown an odd number of aces, > whereas the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed that the odd number is in > fact one -- that is information "not incorporated" in the double; > L27D applies. I think I'd allow "one ace" as incorporated information if a limited (11-) hand shows an odd number of aces. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 18 10:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710161214s31201d78o279bc4e34e9ef5f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry wrote: > I agree with Eric, and I worry about this change. What is to keep > the majority in an RA from making everyone bid more like them? As always that duty falls to the players and TDs. The new law clearly states "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." If the RA tries to abuse it's power (ie by ruling something "special" purely on the basis of dislike) then as TDs we will hold the regulation illegal if we believe the RA would recognise that almost all players in the tournament would be capable of understanding and anticipation. If they try to outlaw e.g. a 9-11 1NT then they had better be prepared to go to court and swear on oath that players will understand "12-14" but not "9-11". The necessary anticipation can be handled by purchasing supplies of my pre-printed "Warning, 9-11 NT in use" T-shirts. RAs actually have *LESS* authority in law than they did under the previous ones - providing only that TDs and players are other than supine in defending their rights. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 10:49:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:49:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Science Fiction Message-ID: <47171E28.1020608@skynet.be> 2016: spurred on by the 37th re-enactment of the dWS debate, the WBFLC decide to end the debate once and for all and write down laws that clearly state what the players should do. 2017: the new set of laws contains L75B3: A player shall not correct his partner's misexplanation, unless an opponent asks him the meaning of some ulterior bid. 2018: The National Flemish appeal committee needs to rule on a very difficult case: one HdW of A has misexplained a bid after his partner had previously misexplained his. The AC needs to rule on the penalty for breaking L75B3. The AC rules -1100, based on some very high bid that the offending side might arrive in if UI had been given and not used. 2019: The offices of the Brazilian Bridge Federation are inundated with demands to outlaw a practice which has become common in some clubs in Sao Paulo: some pairs consistently ask for the meaning of every single bid. When asked why they do this, they point to L75B3 and the benefit it brings them when opponents are obliged to reveal their bidding misunderstanding. The Brazilian Bridge Federation puts a restraint on the number of questions a pair are allowed to ask during a board. An appeal is lodged with the Zone 3 AC. 2020: Similar problems arise in Belgium (of course), Bulgaria, Botswana and Brunei. 2021: in an unprecedented move, the WBF decide to alter a law mid-decade. L73B3 is changed so that the partner of a misexplainer must always correct the misexplanation, immediately after the misexplainer has bid. 2022: The EBU-directors panel starts a strike: because of the new laws, there are so many UI rulings that the quota of one director per 30 tables becomes hopelessly inadequate. After 6 weeks of debate, the EBU gives in and doubles the number of directors for their events. Similar demands are put and met in many European countries (not including Belgium, where screens have been in use for every single event since 2019). 2023: In a ground-breaking case in Auckland, a player is condemned for not giving UI, when he claims to have been certain the explanation by partner was correct. Although the SC confirms that the explanation was correct, the AC rules that no-one can be 100% certain, and that a player is still bound by L73B3 to correct the apparent MI. 2027: The HdWBF asks for recognition by the IOC, claiming that they have more members than the WBF. Players ran over in droves stating "at least there we're still allowed to make an occasional bidding mistake". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 18 10:49:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Suppose NS play weak NT non-vul, strong NT vul. South has 13 > points and opens 1NT. North (say in the ACBL or EBU) announces > "15-17." South looks up and to his horror (though he hides it > well) sees that his side is vulnerable; North has given the correct > explanation. > > West passes, and North bids 2H, which is a transfer over a strong > NT (and obviously what North intends) but natural and non-forcing > over weak. Should South announce "Transfer" (EBU/ACBL again) or > keep quiet (natural non-forcing being non-alertable)? > Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; Why? The announcement may have drawn South's attention to the vulnerability but nevertheless it is now AI to him that he opened 1N while vul. It is impossible for the vulnerability itself ever to be UI. If he had forgotten the system there would be UI but there is no question of that in your intro. Give the hand as a bidding problem to as many people as you wish (as a screen test, no info from partner but opener has realised the vul by the time he must make his second call) and I think 2S will be a universal choice. > The question is how South should _explain_ (and alert). As "transfer", obviously. Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 11:13:17 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:13:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000001c81162$1a6c9510$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <048401c81167$1f926290$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > ............. >> >> Should the situation* arise in practice, I would have no >> >> objection if the TD were to say to North-South: >> >> "In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the >> >> possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly." > > *A player giving two or more alternative explanations for a call but being > unable to tell which alternative is the correct one. > >> > >> > I would agree with something along those lines as the only practical >> > solution. >> >> Practical - yes. Only that, as David has pointed out, it is illegal. > > I noticed David's allegation that such procedure violated several laws and > therefore was illegal, but I have a serious problem with this allegation. > > Exactly which laws should be violated by such procedure? 73A1 - "Communication between partners during the auction and play should be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." You thus cannot tell your partner "I am going to assume that 1NT shows shows spades" and then bid 2S. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rusz pupe na wybory! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 11:21:16 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:21:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> [SW] Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; [TWM] Why? The announcement may have drawn South's attention to the vulnerability but nevertheless it is now AI to him that he opened 1N while vul. It is impossible for the vulnerability itself ever to be UI. If he had forgotten the system there would be UI but there is no question of that in your intro. [DALB] Good grief. I had not thought it possible for anyone to write greater nonsense on this topic than Herman, but I now see that I was wrong. One might as well say, for example, that if while a player is considering his line of defence against four spades, his partner says "We have three tricks", the player may now choose to cash a fourth because the number of tricks his side has taken is always AI to him regardless of how he has come by it. It is well established, because it is what the Laws say, that even if a player realises before hearing his partner's explanation (or any other kind of UI) that he has made an error of any kind, he must continue in his error (because he cannot demonstrate that he realised the error before the explanation occurred). In the given case, it does not matter whether when South opened 1NT he had forgotten the system or the vulnerability; his attention has been drawn to his error by his partner's explanation, and he must not attempt to compensate in any way. [TWM] Give the hand as a bidding problem to as many people as you wish (as a screen test, no info from partner but opener has realised the vul by the time he must make his second call) and I think 2S will be a universal choice. [DALB] Of course it would. But so what? David Burn London, England From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 18 11:40:49 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Science Fiction References: <47171E28.1020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Nice sense of humour........ http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:49 AM Subject: [blml] Science Fiction > 2016: spurred on by the 37th re-enactment of the dWS debate, the WBFLC > decide to end the debate once and for all and write down laws that > clearly state what the players should do. > > 2017: the new set of laws contains L75B3: A player shall not correct > his partner's misexplanation, unless an opponent asks him the meaning > of some ulterior bid. > > 2018: The National Flemish appeal committee needs to rule on a very > difficult case: one HdW of A has misexplained a bid after his partner > had previously misexplained his. The AC needs to rule on the penalty > for breaking L75B3. The AC rules -1100, based on some very high bid > that the offending side might arrive in if UI had been given and not used. > > 2019: The offices of the Brazilian Bridge Federation are inundated > with demands to outlaw a practice which has become common in some > clubs in Sao Paulo: some pairs consistently ask for the meaning of > every single bid. When asked why they do this, they point to L75B3 and > the benefit it brings them when opponents are obliged to reveal their > bidding misunderstanding. The Brazilian Bridge Federation puts a > restraint on the number of questions a pair are allowed to ask during > a board. An appeal is lodged with the Zone 3 AC. > > 2020: Similar problems arise in Belgium (of course), Bulgaria, > Botswana and Brunei. > > 2021: in an unprecedented move, the WBF decide to alter a law > mid-decade. L73B3 is changed so that the partner of a misexplainer > must always correct the misexplanation, immediately after the > misexplainer has bid. > > 2022: The EBU-directors panel starts a strike: because of the new > laws, there are so many UI rulings that the quota of one director per > 30 tables becomes hopelessly inadequate. After 6 weeks of debate, the > EBU gives in and doubles the number of directors for their events. > Similar demands are put and met in many European countries (not > including Belgium, where screens have been in use for every single > event since 2019). > > 2023: In a ground-breaking case in Auckland, a player is condemned for > not giving UI, when he claims to have been certain the explanation by > partner was correct. Although the SC confirms that the explanation was > correct, the AC rules that no-one can be 100% certain, and that a > player is still bound by L73B3 to correct the apparent MI. > > 2027: The HdWBF asks for recognition by the IOC, claiming that they > have more members than the WBF. Players ran over in droves stating "at > least there we're still allowed to make an occasional bidding mistake". > > -- > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1076 - Release Date: > 10/17/2007 7:53 PM > > From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 11:50:18 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:50:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." > > Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. > > For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't > know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I > have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it > does not disclose the actual agreement. >>Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have >>no idea what it is? >Exactly. The plain answer is "We have no agreement on 1NT overcall" . >Anything else that you invent on the spot for an explanation, is MI, No it is not. It is actually one of the gravest offenses to say "we have no agreement" when you have clues to guess right. TDs should punish such approach severely. If I sit down to play with a player A.L. from Krak?w and he responds 3D to my 1NT opening opening then I am about 75% certain that this is the Polish 5431 convention - D shortness, 5+C, and a 4M. We almost never play together but I have knowm his team and his circle long enough to judge that 5431 is more likely than long diamonds. He also knows that this is I often play. We haven't made any _agreement_ about 3D at all and I am by no means certain that my guess is correct. He might very well table xxx xx AKxxxx xx instead. Yes, in the end I have to make a guess but it will be a 75-25 guess for me. But I have more clues than you. If I tell you "no agreement" that will suggests that I have a 50-50 guess which is not the case. This was just an example - the same happens more often when the dilemma is not 'conventional or not" but "forcing or not", the most common problem for irregualar partnerships. Players often hide behind the "no agreement" explanation while they have much more clues to guess right than their opponents. This is foul play. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaros?aw Drob, Przyjdziemy i Spie***ymy - poznaj kandydata! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bef From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 12:02:03 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:02:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000101c81163$91493e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <049e01c8116d$ef1223b0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > ................ >> Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have >> no idea what it is? > > Of course you cannot. > > But then you have failed to comply with Law 75C I have disclosed "all special information conveyed to myself through partnership agreement or partnership experience". Where exactly have I broken this law? >Only if you can prove that you have no agreements on the actual situation You mean that I don't have a CPU about the 1NT bid? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------------- Lepsze wiadomosci z kraju i z zagranicy. Nie wierzysz? Sprawdz - http://wiadomosci.interia.pl/ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 12:13:18 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:13:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <471718CE.8090403@skynet.be> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> <002a01c81126$1009b440$301d1cc0$@com> <471718CE.8090403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c8116f$81bbcdf0$853369d0$@com> [DALB] In the 2007 Laws, the wording "may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" no longer appears in Law 75; instead, a player "must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues". [HdW] I do not see any difference between the two. [DALB] None so blind as those who won't see... Herman, when you "correct a mistaken explanation", you do so by saying "that explanation is not correct; it should be so-and-so". When you "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", you are not correcting the explanation, merely indicating that it is wrong. I have said, and you have agreed, that in this position: North South 1NT (1) 2H (2) ? (1) systemically strong, but explained as weak (2) transfer over a strong no trump, natural over a weak no trump North must bid 2S because even though this violates the current L75D2 (it is an indication in some manner that South has made a mistake), he is nevertheless bound by the stronger provisions of L16 (it is UI to him that his partner has hearts, and he must not act thereon). Now, to bid 2S is "an indication [in some manner] that a mistake has been made". It is not, however, a "correction of the explanation". That is the "difference between the two", and the fact that L75 has been amended in the 2007 version to allow players to act legally per the MS but illegally per the dWS is as strong an indication as there could be that their intent was as advocated by the MS and not as advocated by the dWS. David Burn London, England From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 18 12:15:25 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:15:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <20071018061525.7db6dd18@linuxbox> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:53 +0100 "Grattan Endicott" wrote: <...> > and in any case it > was proper that players should present opinions to their NBOs for > consideration and influence upon the replies NBOs would send. If > players feel that their NBO is deaf to their thoughts players should > use the ballot box to encourage greater attention for their > correspondence; we do not determine their representation or the > corporate structure of the organizations of which they are members. In over 20 years of playing bridge in England, 1974-1997, I do not remember one single occasion where I voted on anything more than my local club committee. I'm sure there was some sort of County AGM at which, *IF* I'd known about it and been able to attend, I might have been able to vote on the County organisation, but I don't recall being told about any such AGM or election. In any case, asking the various County-level candidates (that's assuming there was more than one per vacant position, of course) how they would vote in an NBO election where the candidates weren't even known at that point seems to me to be a fairly futile exercise. In fairness to the EBU I should note that, given what I read on BLML, it appears to be light-years ahead of the ACBL as regards its responsiveness to the grass roots membership. IMO, Eric is exactly right, there is *NO* upward link from the grass roots of the game to the higher levels, at least as far as some (most?) NBOs are concerned. The sort of statement which Grattan makes above is an insult to the intelligence of the average player. The WBF(LC) may want to believe that the average player has an opportunity to have their input considered, but that belief has no basis in reality, again at least as far as some (most?) NBOs are concerned. 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/20071018/8f4979a1/attachment.pgp From mustikka at charter.net Thu Oct 18 12:29:30 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:29:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000401c81171$c495afe0$20195e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." > > Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. > > For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't > know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I > have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it > does not disclose the actual agreement. >>Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have >>no idea what it is? >Exactly. The plain answer is "We have no agreement on 1NT overcall" . >Anything else that you invent on the spot for an explanation, is MI, No it is not. It is actually one of the gravest offenses to say "we have no agreement" when you have clues to guess right. TDs should punish such approach severely. If I sit down to play with a player A.L. from Krak?w and he responds 3D to my 1NT opening opening then I am about 75% certain that this is the Polish 5431 convention - D shortness, 5+C, and a 4M. We almost never play together but I have knowm his team and his circle long enough to judge that 5431 is more likely than long diamonds. He also knows that this is I often play. We haven't made any _agreement_ about 3D at all and I am by no means certain that my guess is correct. He might very well table xxx xx AKxxxx xx instead. Yes, in the end I have to make a guess but it will be a 75-25 guess for me. But I have more clues than you. If I tell you "no agreement" that will suggests that I have a 50-50 guess which is not the case. This was just an example - the same happens more often when the dilemma is not 'conventional or not" but "forcing or not", the most common problem for irregualar partnerships. Players often hide behind the "no agreement" explanation while they have much more clues to guess right than their opponents. This is foul play. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland The Law says opponents are entitled to full explanation of partnership agreements. When there are none, the full explanation is *there are none*. IMO it is unethical and it is contrary to the Law to invent a meaning when there is no agreement and no prior partnership experience. However, it is okay to not have an agreement, particularly at club games - how else can one sit down and play a casual game with a stranger or pickup partner, perhaps arriving at the last minute? Coming from the same geographical location or playing at the same club IMO does not constitute a partnership agreement. At higher level tournaments the "no agreement" typically is rare as players are mostly regular partners and at least have have a fully completed system card. Cheers, Raija From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 12:40:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:40:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <048401c81167$1f926290$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000201c81173$4665d850$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > ............. > >> >> Should the situation* arise in practice, I would have no > >> >> objection if the TD were to say to North-South: > >> >> "In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the > >> >> possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly." > > > > *A player giving two or more alternative explanations for a call but > being > > unable to tell which alternative is the correct one. > > > >> > > >> > I would agree with something along those lines as the only practical > >> > solution. > >> > >> Practical - yes. Only that, as David has pointed out, it is illegal. > > > > I noticed David's allegation that such procedure violated several laws > and > > therefore was illegal, but I have a serious problem with this > allegation. > > > > Exactly which laws should be violated by such procedure? > > > 73A1 - "Communication between partners during the auction > and play should be effected only by means of the calls and plays > themselves." > > You thus cannot tell your partner "I am going to assume that > 1NT shows shows spades" and then bid 2S. Who has ever said anything about telling partner which alternative the player selects? Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Oct 18 13:21:31 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:21:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: <20071018112131.8F672638CD5@f02.poczta.interia.pl> > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > > ............. > > >> >> Should the situation* arise in practice, I would have no > > >> >> objection if the TD were to say to North-South: > > >> >> "In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the > > >> >> possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly." > > > > > > *A player giving two or more alternative explanations for a call but > > being > > > unable to tell which alternative is the correct one. > > > > > >> > > > >> > I would agree with something along those lines as the only > practical > > >> > solution. > > >> > > >> Practical - yes. Only that, as David has pointed out, it is illegal. > > > > > > I noticed David's allegation that such procedure violated several > laws > > and > > > therefore was illegal, but I have a serious problem with this > > allegation. > > > > > > Exactly which laws should be violated by such procedure? > > > > > > 73A1 - "Communication between partners during the auction > > and play should be effected only by means of the calls and plays > > themselves." > > > > You thus cannot tell your partner "I am going to assume that > > 1NT shows shows spades" and then bid 2S. > > Who has ever said anything about telling partner which alternative the > player selects? > A David Burn. "I would have no objection if the TD were to say to North-South: 'In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly'". If he didn't mean selecting one of the given meanings by discussing it at the table during the auction ("I will treat their 1NT as showing spades, partner") then why else would David write this sentence? In order to mentally select one of the given possibilities without telling my partner I don't need a TD. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rusz pupe na wybory! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 13:29:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:29:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000101c8116f$81bbcdf0$853369d0$@com> References: <200710161437.l9GEb5FA017464@cfa.harvard.edu> <471578F6.6010506@nhcc.net> <4715B4C2.4010900@t-online.de> <4715BBE0.5000903@skynet.be> <4715FFB7.2050307@t-online.de> <47161B74.1060401@skynet.be> <002a01c81126$1009b440$301d1cc0$@com> <471718CE.8090403@skynet.be> <000101c8116f$81bbcdf0$853369d0$@com> Message-ID: <471743A5.6090104@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [DALB] > > In the 2007 Laws, the wording "may not indicate in any manner that a mistake > has been made" no longer appears in Law 75; instead, a player "must do > nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues". > > [HdW] > > I do not see any difference between the two. > > [DALB] > > None so blind as those who won't see... > > Herman, when you "correct a mistaken explanation", you do so by saying "that > explanation is not correct; it should be so-and-so". When you "indicate in > any manner that a mistake has been made", you are not correcting the > explanation, merely indicating that it is wrong. > However, the new law does not say "must not say anything", it says "must do nothing". Surely you won't argue that saying "diamond preference" after "blackwood" is not "doing nothing to correct". I really don't understand why you want to make difficult contortions in order to prove that L75D2 or its modern counterpart is NOT broken. You have had your say about the priority, please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that you are doing nothing wrong. Maybe next time you'll argue that in fact "diamond preference" contains no UI to partner either? > I have said, and you have agreed, that in this position: > > North South > 1NT (1) 2H (2) > ? > > (1) systemically strong, but explained as weak > (2) transfer over a strong no trump, natural over a weak no trump > > North must bid 2S because even though this violates the current L75D2 (it is > an indication in some manner that South has made a mistake), he is > nevertheless bound by the stronger provisions of L16 (it is UI to him that > his partner has hearts, and he must not act thereon). > Yes, we have agreed on that. > Now, to bid 2S is "an indication [in some manner] that a mistake has been > made". It is not, however, a "correction of the explanation". That is the > "difference between the two", and the fact that L75 has been amended in the > 2007 version to allow players to act legally per the MS but illegally per > the dWS is as strong an indication as there could be that their intent was > as advocated by the MS and not as advocated by the dWS. > And you believe that by not yet saying anything about the intended meaning, you are "doing nothing to correct"? "diamond preference" is not an indication that the intended meaning was "minors"? Of course it could have been "choose a red suit", that's true. But in my book, anything that says "it's no blackwood" is not "nothing to correct". But you may have a point that the wording is somewhat less strong. But from there to go to the conclusion that the WBFLC have banned the dWS is still a giant leap. They have not said "nothing, except correct explanations". > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 13:33:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:33:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> References: <47157B19.1030801@nhcc.net> <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> Message-ID: <47174497.7070700@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SW] > > Of course South must _bid_ as if 2H is natural and non-forcing; > > [TWM] > > Why? The announcement may have drawn South's attention to the vulnerability > but nevertheless it is now AI to him that he opened 1N while vul. It is > impossible for the vulnerability itself ever to be UI. > > If he had forgotten the system there would be UI but there is no question of > that in your intro. > > [DALB] > > Good grief. I had not thought it possible for anyone to write greater > nonsense on this topic than Herman, but I now see that I was wrong. While remaining calm and collected over the hidden snipe at both Tim and myself, I must say that I agree with David here. Not that it is nonsense, because it is a very small mistake in interpretation. No Tim, a player who was under a mistaken belief 1 minute ago is not allowed to wake up, when the mistake is shown through UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 13:32:38 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:32:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000201c81173$4665d850$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <048401c81167$1f926290$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000201c81173$4665d850$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c8117a$9f41efc0$ddc5cf40$@com> [SP] Who has ever said anything about telling partner which alternative the player selects? [DALB] No one said anything about it explicitly, but it is what I had in mind. In Konrad's example: West North East South 1H 1NT ? where West has explained 1NT as "either Raptor or natural, I'm not sure", a practical possibility may be for the TD to tell South "you can decide (and tell North) whether you're bidding over Raptor or bidding over natural". As I have said, this is illegal - but a way round this illegality occurs to me. The offence here is that North will act on the UI transmitted by South. The director could ask East-West if they minded this, and since East-West have caused all the problems in the first place, they ought not to mind, whereupon the director can obtain East-West's request to use L81C8 to waive the penalties that would otherwise be incurred by North-South under L16. In trying to accomplish the difficult task of implementing the Laws (which were designed for play at levels where people at least had a system, even if they occasionally forgot it), bridge clubs face many problems that are incapable of resolution. I don't mind in the least if clubs occasionally resort to methods that would not be countenanced in higher-level tournament play. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 13:39:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:39:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> References: <47171E28.1020608@skynet.be> <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <471745E4.5020900@skynet.be> Anne Jones wrote: > Nice sense of humour........ Thank you. But I am deadly serious in my contention that if any lawmaker would want to go down the road of banning the dWS actions, the consequences could be dire and unexpected. (well, not unexpected by me). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 18 03:57:29 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:57:29 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 18/10/2007 02:01:44 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: You can call the director, but you can't force either the director or your opponents to do anything. Whether the TD requires this pair to play a simple system is at *his* discretion, absent an SO regulation more specific than the Orange Book. See OB 4A2. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071017/b2dfba37/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 11:00:38 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:00:38 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Obviously_this_is_the_p?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rime_duty?= References: <6bmu4t$1713vj@mxin.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <471720B6.000001.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- ton: Giving UI is not an infraction in itself. Giving information which your partner expects you to give if that information is not in accordance with the agreements is an infraction. See for example new Law 72A3. AG : one last word from me in this (too) long thread : While giving UI isn't an infraction, transmitting information (in this case, that partner's belief about the bid is wrong) through the way explanations are given is unquestionably one, according to L73B1, even if it is only a by-product of the explanation. It's glaringly obvious that there is a problem, when both possible reactions are infractions. Why do so many bury their heads in the sand ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/e24d6671/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/20071018/e24d6671/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/e24d6671/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 11:18:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:18:40 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Angels_on_the_point_of_a_need?= =?iso-8859-1?q?le=3F?= References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? AG : I'm a little surprised you classify those as the main controversies. IMOBO, point B is tackled by L73D1 (it's hasty indeed, and making it or not can easily transmit information), and point C by L81C6, which would have been phrased another way if the legislator wanted to avoid the TDs mixing in I'd say the most important thing to settle is how frequently some actions should be taken, like split scores : many collegues think they should be avoided, because they're difficult to understand (which could be a good reason indeed). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/dfd231b0/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/20071018/dfd231b0/attachment-0002.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/dfd231b0/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 11:18:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:18:40 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Angels_on_the_point_of_a_need?= =?iso-8859-1?q?le=3F?= References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? AG : I'm a little surprised you classify those as the main controversies. IMOBO, point B is tackled by L73D1 (it's hasty indeed, and making it or not can easily transmit information), and point C by L81C6, which would have been phrased another way if the legislator wanted to avoid the TDs mixing in I'd say the most important thing to settle is how frequently some actions should be taken, like split scores : many collegues think they should be avoided, because they're difficult to understand (which could be a good reason indeed). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/dfd231b0/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/20071018/dfd231b0/attachment-0003.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/dfd231b0/attachment-0003.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 12:17:19 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:17:19 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Science_Fiction?= References: <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <471732AE.00000A.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Anne Jones Date : 18/10/2007 11:41:10 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Science Fiction Nice sense of humour........ Subject: [blml] Science Fiction AG : there is, alas, one paragraph which doesn"t taste like humour or science-fiction ... > 2018: The National Flemish appeal committee needs to rule on a very > difficult case: one HdW of A has misexplained a bid after his partner > had previously misexplained his. The AC needs to rule on the penalty > for breaking L75B3. The AC rules -1100, based on some very high bid > that the offending side might arrive in if UI had been given and not used. AG : by 2018, there will most probably exist a National Flemish appeal committee, with the emphasis on "national". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/ac13de33/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/ac13de33/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/ac13de33/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 14:09:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:09:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000401c81171$c495afe0$20195e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000401c81171$c495afe0$20195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47174CED.6000000@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "raija" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:51 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > >> On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >>> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." >> Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. >> >> For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't >> know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I >> have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it >> does not disclose the actual agreement. > >>> Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have >>> no idea what it is? > >> Exactly. The plain answer is "We have no agreement on 1NT overcall" . >> Anything else that you invent on the spot for an explanation, is MI, > > No it is not. It is actually one of the gravest offenses to say "we have > no agreement" when you have clues to guess right. TDs > should punish such approach severely. > > If I sit down to play with a player A.L. from Krak?w > and he responds 3D to my 1NT opening opening then > I am about 75% certain that this is the Polish 5431 convention - > D shortness, 5+C, and a 4M. We almost > never play together but I have knowm his team and his circle > long enough to judge that 5431 is more likely than > long diamonds. He also knows that this is I often play. > We haven't made any _agreement_ about 3D at all and > I am by no means certain that my guess is correct. > He might very well table xxx xx AKxxxx xx instead. > > Yes, in the end I have to make a guess but it will be a 75-25 guess > for me. But I have more clues than you. If I tell you "no agreement" > that will suggests that I have a 50-50 guess which > is not the case. > > This was just an example - the same happens more often when > the dilemma is not 'conventional or not" but "forcing or not", > the most common problem for irregualar partnerships. > Players often hide behind the "no agreement" explanation > while they have much more clues to guess right > than their opponents. This is foul play. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > The Law says opponents are entitled to full explanation of partnership > agreements. When there are none, the full explanation is *there are none*. > IMO it is unethical and it is contrary to the Law to invent a meaning when > there is no agreement and no prior partnership experience. However, it is > okay to not have an agreement, particularly at club games - how else can > one sit down and play a casual game with a stranger or pickup partner, > perhaps arriving at the last minute? Coming from the same geographical > location or playing at the same club IMO does not constitute a partnership > agreement. At higher level tournaments the "no agreement" typically is > rare as players are mostly regular partners and at least have have a fully > completed system card. > > Cheers, > Raija > Raija, it is this attitude which turns people away from the game. Konrad is absolutely right in saying that if he has a 75/25 inkling as to what his partner is trying to say, he should (at least) state the 75% meaning. Some people will add they are uncertain, some people will add the 25% meaning, but I feel that is merely adding information which is not necessary. If it turns out to be the 25% meaning, the TD will rule exactly the same whether explainer had mentioned that other alternative or not. But saying "no agreement" in cases like the one Konrad describes is hideous. I will call it cheating, and I would not apologize for the use of the word. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 14:24:52 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:24:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Science Fiction References: <47171E28.1020608@skynet.be><000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <471745E4.5020900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009301c81181$e2b11a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Lawmakers? Like Grattan and Ton, who insist that dWS actions are already entirely illegal? Does "banning" mean anything in that context? Cheers Stefanie Rohan > Anne Jones wrote: >> Nice sense of humour........ > > Thank you. > But I am deadly serious in my contention that if any lawmaker would > want to go down the road of banning the dWS actions, the consequences > could be dire and unexpected. (well, not unexpected by me). > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 18 15:09:26 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:09:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Science Fiction References: <47171E28.1020608@skynet.be><000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><471745E4.5020900@skynet.be> <009301c81181$e2b11a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001b01c81188$21528620$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Science Fiction > Lawmakers? Like Grattan and Ton, who insist that dWS actions are already > entirely illegal? Does "banning" mean anything in that context? > > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > > > >> Anne Jones wrote: >>> Nice sense of humour........ >> >> Thank you. >> But I am deadly serious in my contention that if any lawmaker would >> want to go down the road of banning the dWS actions, the consequences >> could be dire and unexpected. (well, not unexpected by me). >> Much against my judgement, as I have heretofore sworn not to get involved further in this discourse, I have decided to add to the noise on this subject. HdW and I have been crossing swords on this matter for longer than I can remember and I think Herman's an idiot to keep pushing his ideas (peace herman). However, I do see WHY he keeps insisting on the possible validity of his interpretation; it contains some elements with merit - BUT there is enough jurisprudence handed down that makes me believe it is contrary to the intent of both the law and the lawmakers and contrary to the spirit of bridge, where full, free and correct ("Father, I cannot tell a lie, cerise arboreal inversion rests with me") disclosure of agreement - the non creation of MI - is the primacy; and where the creation of UI is secondary and this UI is required by Law to be handled by the receiver. John >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 18 15:00:07 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:00:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Science_Fiction?= References: <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <471732AE.00000A.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <006c01c81186$d014c0d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> I have just realised that the annoying occurence of 'reply' going directly to the original poster has been corrected and now 'reply' comes to the group. Thanks to the moderator for doing this, but sadly on this occasion it came back to bite me. My quip was this time intended for Herman alone. This list is far too serious for such hilarity!! Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: [blml] R?f. : Re: Science Fiction -------Message original------- De : Anne Jones Date : 18/10/2007 11:41:10 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Science Fiction Nice sense of humour........ Subject: [blml] Science Fiction AG : there is, alas, one paragraph which doesn"t taste like humour or science-fiction ... > 2018: The National Flemish appeal committee needs to rule on a very > difficult case: one HdW of A has misexplained a bid after his partner > had previously misexplained his. The AC needs to rule on the penalty > for breaking L75B3. The AC rules -1100, based on some very high bid > that the offending side might arrive in if UI had been given and not used. AG : by 2018, there will most probably exist a National Flemish appeal committee, with the emphasis on "national". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 269.15.0/1076 - Release Date: 10/17/2007 7:53 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/1c5bba18/attachment-0001.htm -------------- 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/20071018/1c5bba18/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071018/1c5bba18/attachment-0001.jpeg From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 15:46:15 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:46:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710171353wbe3aa58r31ffc65c97574bb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710152059.l9FKxfYT021766@cfa.harvard.edu> <471574CD.20703@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071017150831.025e6b80@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2b1e598b0710171353wbe3aa58r31ffc65c97574bb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9E0DB8D7-8F21-4025-85A6-62FFF0A0DAB8@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 10/17/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> One ambiguity has already been pointed out to us (I apologize for >> forgetting by whom): Does "from the substitute bid" mean in >> isolation, or in combination with the contents of one's own hand? >> The latter seems fairer, but negates the widely accepted principle >> that a TD should be able to make a proper ruling at the table in mid- >> deal without looking at anyone's cards. > > I am afraid I don't understand this. From a mathematical standpoint, > my intuition at this moment says one's own hand cannot affect the > issue. Would you be willing to give an example? ...4NT-5H-5D. 4NT was Blackwood. IBer missed the 5H bid, thought it had gone ...4NT-P-. 5D would have shown one ace. IBer wants to substitute pass, which would show an odd number of aces. Can he do this without incurring a lead penalty? Does it matter how many aces his partner holds? (a) No and no. (b) Maybe and yes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Thu Oct 18 15:54:03 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><000401c81171$c495afe0$20195e47@DFYXB361> <47174CED.6000000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c8118e$58436860$20195e47@DFYXB361> > The Law says opponents are entitled to full explanation of partnership > agreements. When there are none, the full explanation is *there are > none*. > IMO it is unethical and it is contrary to the Law to invent a meaning when > there is no agreement and no prior partnership experience. However, it is > okay to not have an agreement, particularly at club games - how else can > one sit down and play a casual game with a stranger or pickup partner, > perhaps arriving at the last minute? Coming from the same geographical > location or playing at the same club IMO does not constitute a partnership > agreement. At higher level tournaments the "no agreement" typically is > rare as players are mostly regular partners and at least have have a fully > completed system card. > > Cheers, > Raija > Raija, it is this attitude which turns people away from the game. Konrad is absolutely right in saying that if he has a 75/25 inkling as to what his partner is trying to say, he should (at least) state the 75% meaning. Some people will add they are uncertain, some people will add the 25% meaning, but I feel that is merely adding information which is not necessary. If it turns out to be the 25% meaning, the TD will rule exactly the same whether explainer had mentioned that other alternative or not. But saying "no agreement" in cases like the one Konrad describes is hideous. I will call it cheating, and I would not apologize for the use of the word. -- Herman DE WAEL ------------ The Law makes it clear, to me, what the duty is: explain partnership agreement in full. I know of no Law that advocates or requires a player to invent an agreement when there is no agreement _and_/_or_ partnership experience. Instead of saying *No Agreement*, one could also say *Sorry, we did not discuss 1NT overcall as we just partnered up at the last minute* or something to that effect. But I prefer facts, just the facts. As to apology, I am not expecting one from you - haven't seen a sincere one in the past to anybody, so why now... :) Cheers, Raija From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 16:08:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <3E10A718-F823-4762-8763-9A0DB2A062A0@rochester.rr.com> References: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <7064B669-98F8-46C9-8D6F-EF866D252022@starpower.net> <3E10A718-F823-4762-8763-9A0DB2A062A0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > According to the WBF and ACBL web sites, the current chairman of the > latter's LC is also vice chairman of the former's. Also, there are > three other members of the latter's LC on the former's LC. And at > least one of those other members was on the drafting subcommittee. So > it would seem that the ACBLLC, or part of it, if no one else in ACBL- > land, was privy to the proposed changes as discussed by the WBFLC as > a whole (before someone suggests I'm being accusatory here, I do > *not* claim that anyone inappropriately "leaked" information to their > NBO - or in this case, ZO). The members of the ACBLLC actively participated in the drafting of the new laws and were undoubtedly diligent and dedicated to the task, but they did so behind a veil of secrecy that the U.S. Vice President's office would envy. They worked entirely alone, with no outside input, refusing to share any information with anybody, not even their own top-ranked TDs. Their problem, so to speak, wasn't inappropriate leaks, but rather the lack of appropropriate ones. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 18 16:16:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:16:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Science_Fiction?= In-Reply-To: <471732AE.00000A.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <000e01c8116a$f8e23900$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <471732AE.00000A.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <47176AD8.9050804@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Anne Jones > /*Date :*/ 18/10/2007 11:41:10 > /*A :*/ Bridge Laws Mailing List > /*Sujet :*/ Re: [blml] Science Fiction > > Nice sense of humour........ > > Subject: [blml] Science Fiction > > > AG : there is, alas, one paragraph which doesn"t taste like humour or > science-fiction ... > > > > 2018: The National Flemish appeal committee needs to rule on a very > > difficult case: one HdW of A has misexplained a bid after his partner > > had previously misexplained his. The AC needs to rule on the penalty > > for breaking L75B3. The AC rules -1100, based on some very high bid > > that the offending side might arrive in if UI had been given and not > used. > > AG : by 2018, there will most probably exist a National Flemish appeal > committee, with the emphasis on "national". I had indeed written it with that thought in mind. Not that I'd welcome such a change, as you well know, Alain. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Oct 18 16:18:52 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:18:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] communication with national authorities Message-ID: <47176B4C.2050708@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! This is apocryphal and it has been straightened out and the ACBL people were evry nice about it but it might amuse some of you. You think you have problems communicating/getting answers) with your national authority? Some months ago I noticed that my membership in the ACBL would lapse in Oct. 2007. So I sent them an email wishing to renew/extend it with all necessary (for payment) credit card info. Received no response. A month or two later sent another email, repeating request and asking about first email. Received no response but they stopped sending me the Bulletin after July although the old subscription was valid through Oct. A month or so later sent a third email, angrily asking why I didn't get any response to first two emails. This time received an email telling me that my membership had been renewed on 06/08/07. (I received this in Oct.) (There was no explanation if the date was June 8th or Aug. 6th.) The Bulletins were no longer being sent (I live in Europe) because I had not paid the foreign postal fee of 30. There was no explanation as to 30 what (dollars? euros?) nor was there one pertaining to the duration of the renewal. (I had requested, if possible, 3 or 5 years to avoid the annual hassle and aggravation.) I had sent my credit card info with instructions to debit the account for whatever sum would be necessary. Thus, considering that I have been living in Europe for over 45 years (and receiving the Bulletin here that long) it seemed not unreasonable (at least to me) that they'd realise that I wanted to continue to receive it and debit my account for that as well. But that was, apparently, optimistic. The foreign postal fee was not included/debited and apparently my membership was extended without the Bulletin. No one bothered to inform me of this or even ask. Okay, it was aggravating while it lasted but I do want to note that all problems have finally been solved and the ACBL people have been very nice, apologised, are sending me the missing Bulletins (they don't know why they weren't sent, lesson is probably not to renew your membership early) and have even credited me with an extra year's extension. Ciao, JE From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 18 16:29:26 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:29:26 +0900 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> References: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> Each member federation of the WBF, including the ACBL was able to show the interim draft to those officials thought appropriate by that federation, provided that confidentialiity was maintained by all concerned. -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> According to the WBF and ACBL web sites, the current chairman of the >> latter's LC is also vice chairman of the former's. Also, there are >> three other members of the latter's LC on the former's LC. And at >> least one of those other members was on the drafting subcommittee. So >> it would seem that the ACBLLC, or part of it, if no one else in ACBL- >> land, was privy to the proposed changes as discussed by the WBFLC as >> a whole (before someone suggests I'm being accusatory here, I do >> *not* claim that anyone inappropriately "leaked" information to their >> NBO - or in this case, ZO). > >The members of the ACBLLC actively participated in the drafting of >the new laws and were undoubtedly diligent and dedicated to the task, >but they did so behind a veil of secrecy that the U.S. Vice >President's office would envy. They worked entirely alone, with no >outside input, refusing to share any information with anybody, not >even their own top-ranked TDs. Their problem, so to speak, wasn't >inappropriate leaks, but rather the lack of appropropriate ones. > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 16:45:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:45:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com><200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com><00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2452646A-86A8-4F57-8964-9C4DCD54059E@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and >> mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the >> reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction >> of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: >> >> Individual players wishing to express opinions have a better chance >> of conveying those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece >> of paper, put it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they >> send them to their NBO. >> >> Grattan and the others, I'm sure, see some distinction between >> politely guiding players to send opinions to their NBOs and simply >> telling them to ---- off, but from where I sit there's no practical >> difference at all, and the WBF should not be surprised when players >> react to such "guidance" accordingly. >> > +=+ Opportunity given to some 116 NBOs* to comment on our drafts > as they were in November could well have landed us (me) with an > indigestible problem in collating them law-by-law for presentation > to the > DSC. As it was, the responses returned from NBOs were not so extensive > that I was unable to sort them in that way and communicate them to > colleagues. Offering the opportunity to bridge players generally to > present > their views direct would have opened up an unacceptable risk of > clogging > to the procedure, and in any case it was proper that players should > present > opinions to their NBOs for consideration and influence upon the > replies > NBOs would send. If players feel that their NBO is deaf to their > thoughts > players should use the ballot box to encourage greater attention > for their > correspondence; we do not determine their representation or the > corporate > structure of the organizations of which they are members. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (* plus eight Zonal Organizations and the Portland Club) That makes 116 NBOs, eight Zonal Organizations, one Portland Club, and zero ordinary bridge players. I understand perfectly well why the WBF insists that players should present opinions to their NBOs for consideration. But if this is to be anything but head-in-the-sand hypocrisy, it is incumbent upon them to demand that NBOs accept players' opinions and consider them if those NBOs wish to be included in the process. And if they truly believe that the apppropriate recourse is for players to "use the ballot box", they should demand that NBOs elect their officials in a sufficiently open and transparent manner to allow ordinary members to influence the outcome as a condition of WBF membership. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 18 16:51:27 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:51:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <042e01c8115c$bddd9ce0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <008101c81196$5cb8a330$0701a8c0@john> > > Taken to an extreme, all bids could have an almost infinite number of > explanations, where the two players do not even have the time to decide > whether > they are playing Polish Club, Precision, 5-card majors etc etc. This is up > to > the SO to sort out and decide that the players are forced to play a simple > system or complete a full card. MM I quite enjoy playing "No partnership agreement" as a system. I have never found a Law that says I have to have any agreements; just Laws that tell me how to behave if I've been stupid enough to decide that I *should* have them. Take your high IQ (with GIB simulation built in) alien pair arriving from alpha centauri at a WBF tourney. One is extrovert and a gambler, the other introvert and conservative. They speed read the laws and relevant regulations and sit down to play. This should be fun! John From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 18 16:56:21 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:56:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <20071017163635.2E278254016@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47163C55.7050008@skynet.be><001201c81104$f8ace180$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <002901c81123$c3003f40$4900bdc0$@com> Message-ID: <009b01c81197$0bc36db0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > [HD] > > What happens if Herman makes David Burn's suggestion that we not hear > partner's explanations a literal reality? People who believe that they > cannot awaken Partner with UI simply carry around pads of paper, and write > their explanations on it. > > [DALB] > > By coincidence, this morning I picked up an old Bridge World magazine > (February 2004). In the Editorial, Jeff Rubens suggested exactly such a > procedure. Indeed, he proposed the use of a "communication card" on which > were written the numbers from 1 to 40, the suit symbols, and terms such as > "hcp", "non-forcing", "no agreement" and so on. Playing with screens the > procedure as Hirsch describes it is exactly what happens. Were such a > proposal actually to be introduced, of course, everyone would complain > like > fury. Just as they did about bidding boxes. > > In my student days, a group of us created a "post-mortem" card with > expressions such as "sorry", "you cretin", "partner", "I should have > played", "a diamond", "with the next-door neighbour's cat instead of you", > and the like. They became quite popular. I remember we had to ban Matthew's "one off in a laydown" as it was deemed unsportsmanlike gloating :) John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 18 16:59:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <004e01c81113$3b43a980$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <00ae01c81197$84c2c530$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > > > > Yes, they have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75A. > And they also have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75D2 > ("must not in any manner"). > > HD: > > 75A is "must be fully and freely available" > 75D2 is "nor may he indicate in any manner" > > If you look at the Laws Preface, "may not" is a very strong negative > imperative, but not as strong as a "must" imperative. Accordingly, should > these appear to be in conflict, 75A is the stronger imperative. Violation > of > 75A would normally be treated as the greater offense. Wahey! John > > Hirsch Davis > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 18 17:09:42 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:09:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071018110942.40ee479a@linuxbox> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:29:26 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > Each member federation of the WBF, including the ACBL was able to > show the interim draft to those officials thought appropriate by that > federation, provided that confidentialiity was maintained by all > concerned. > I think that's exactly the point Eric (and myself) were making. *Officials*, not TDs or players, and secrecy all round. It's the rules of a f***ing *GAME*, folks, not the plans for some top-secret military installation. There is a problem in bridge. Those with power want to hoard it to themselves, and that's why we get this ridiculous secretive mentality, plus this delusion (I'm being charitable) that the grass-roots player can refer opinions upward and actually have them considered at the highest level. 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/20071018/5e865543/attachment.pgp From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:13:48 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:13:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E54545C-9208-4D3B-9D43-258240A80068@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > An opponent recently said "No agreement" when his partner opened > 1NT, and > my partner called the director indicating that our methods, as with > many > pairs, were different over a strong NT to those over a weak NT. The > director > ruled that the obligation to state the NT range was absolute and > the opener's > partner had to give a range (or play could grind to a halt); if > the explanation > was wrong, there would also be misinformation. IMO the TD ruled incorrectly. He appears to be a member of the DwS. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:15:59 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:15:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <588F8DB9-7E3A-4021-9879-D4C77214E9A2@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have > no idea what it is? You can't. That was my point. :-) From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 18 17:16:54 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:16:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" References: Message-ID: <00eb01c81199$eac5d000$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "not have the force of law" hijack. We expressed our concern; you and me, that the new Laws would be in Grattanese. I find the substantial revision to be clearer than the previous Laws, and closer to my perception of "How we play bridge" than before. I somewhat impertinently had the temerity to tell grattan that I believed he should be proud of his swansong. (What the hell, i'm always in trouble, but I genuinely meant it). john *swansong - based on the myth that a swan only sings when it is dying; and thusly one's final great work. (Vide Mozart's requiem for example) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 17:17:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <045201c81161$5635b780$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <004e01c81113$3b43a980$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <045201c81161$5635b780$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <3B8F3120-9ABC-480A-A0E4-DFE7120F8279@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > In a sense I'm grateful for you contribution - > you have just proven that the opponents are better off > playing against someone who follows the dWs - this > is what I have been saying all along. Duh! If you require a player who doesn't know the answer to an opponent's inquiry to take a guess, and then adjust the score in his opponents' favor whenever he guesses incorrectly (and it matters), his opponents will be better off. That is hardly a profound insight; I don't see how it advances the discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:27:45 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:27:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Players often hide behind the "no agreement" explanation > while they have much more clues to guess right > than their opponents. This is foul play. Yes. IMO, the proper way to explain the meaning of a call for which you have no explicit or implicit agreement, and for which you have no other information on which to base a guess, is to say "we have no agreement." In all cases in which you have other information (which is probably very close to *all* cases), the proper explanation is "we have no agreement, but..." followed by giving all the pertinent other information you have. I have some sympathy for the idea that when you have a guess, a proper explanation might be "we have no agreement, but on consideration I believe it's most likely X, though it might possibly be Y or Z". Sympathy, but I don't think it's what the law requires. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 18 17:31:10 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:31:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <47174CED.6000000@skynet.be> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000401c81171$c495afe0$20195e47@DFYXB361> <47174CED.6000000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47177C3E.8070005@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > it is this attitude which turns people away from the game. Konrad is > absolutely right in saying that if he has a 75/25 inkling as to what > his partner is trying to say, he should (at least) state the 75% > meaning. Some people will add they are uncertain, some people will add > the 25% meaning, but I feel that is merely adding information which is > not necessary. There we go again. What you, I, the Pope or George W. Bush feel is if no importance. The law is clear. _Every_ bit of information is to be disclosed. So the explanation should be along the lines of "it could be A or B, and I could give estimates about probabilities, but you have to realize that these would indeed _be_ estimates, nothing more". Or words to that effect. Since the next bid will take the different possibilities and probabilities into account (indeed it will be based on them) the opps are entitled to every snippet of information you have. > If it turns out to be the 25% meaning, the TD will rule > exactly the same whether explainer had mentioned that other > alternative or not. > He would not have to rule at all if you had mentioned it in the first place. > But saying "no agreement" in cases like the one Konrad describes is > hideous. I will call it cheating, and I would not apologize for the > use of the word. > I have no problem with that. If there is even a shade of implicit (let alone explicit) agreement or partnership experience one has to disclose it > > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 17:34:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:34:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <7EAC5F71-476A-4486-BD22-E0E9C26AA696@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 4:35 AM, raija wrote: > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > From: "Ed Reppert" > >> On Oct 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> I fear directors would say, "well, he gave an honest answer >>> about his uncertainty, and therefore no damage is possible." >> >> Any director who would say that needs his logic engine overhauled. >> >> For legal purposes, "It could be A, or it could be B, but I don't >> know which is our actual agreement" is effectively the same as "I >> have no idea what our agreement is". It is misinformation because it >> does not disclose the actual agreement. > > Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have > no idea what it is? > > Exactly. The plain answer is "We have no agreement on 1NT overcall" . > Anything else that you invent on the spot for an explanation, is > MI, and is > not even answering the question [no matter how it may have been > phrased] > which is: *What is your partnership agreement on 1NT overcall* That's not how it works where I play. If you merely claim "no agreement", but have sufficient knowledge of partner's likely tendencies to assume that partner could only have intended his call to mean either A or B, you will be found to have given MI. You are entitled in this situation to choose a call that best caters to the possibility that partner might have intended either A or B, without taking any other potential meanings into consideration. So are your opponents. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:38:24 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:38:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> References: <000001c810f2$881d22c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <7064B669-98F8-46C9-8D6F-EF866D252022@starpower.net> <3E10A718-F823-4762-8763-9A0DB2A062A0@rochester.rr.com> <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <56D0988C-FB25-421D-A145-8E1815637AB7@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Their problem, so to speak, wasn't > inappropriate leaks, but rather the lack of appropropriate ones. Heh. Indeed. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 17:40:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:40:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <20071018110942.40ee479a@linuxbox> References: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> <20071018110942.40ee479a@linuxbox> Message-ID: <2D9EEA30-E722-45EE-8852-32B8828C2105@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Brian wrote: > There is a problem in bridge. Those with power want to hoard it to > themselves, and that's why we get this ridiculous secretive mentality, > plus this delusion (I'm being charitable) that the grass-roots player > can refer opinions upward and actually have them considered at the > highest level. The desire to accumulate and hold power is not a bridge problem - it's a human problem. I'm not sure there is a solution, save perhaps for us all to become more than human - whatever that means. From jeffford at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 18:41:14 2007 From: jeffford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:41:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <4716CC4E.6060800@ntlworld.com> References: <021401c81103$7b331ae0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <4716CC4E.6060800@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70710180941r247b1e6bn5f62360cc834c47a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/07, Guthrie wrote: > [Jerry Fusselman] > I agree with [Konrad]'s points. I, too, really hate it when my > opponents say, "it might be X and it might be Y," because my > agreements are often quite different in the two cases. > > [Nigel] > Now, however, I prefer Richard Hill's suggestion "If you don't know, > then offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the meaning > of his own call." If this were the case then the ambiguous bidder's partner could frequently deduce the meaning of the ambiguous bid by asking LHO what RHO's bid means. (In the Raptor / natural 1NT overcall example, say 2S was bid and explained as a forcing cue bid. Now you know it was a Raptor overcall.) You'd be better off claiming you didn't know the agreement in any case where you weren't absolutely sure. At worst RHO makes an ambiguous bid and you have the same guess as before. Jeff -- Jeff Ford From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 19:00:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:00:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: >> >> In David's example, the auction 4NT-5H-X would have revealed that >> East holds one ace, and the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed the same >> information; L27C1 applies. But if the double had been DEPO rather >> than D0P1, 4NT-5H-X would only have shown an odd number of aces, >> whereas the auction 4NT-5H-5D/X revealed that the odd number is in >> fact one -- that is information "not incorporated" in the double; >> L27D applies. > > I think I'd allow "one ace" as incorporated information if a > limited (11-) > hand shows an odd number of aces. Well noticed. I had earlier asked whether "from the substitute bid" applied in the context of one's hand (if you hold two aces, the 5D IB in the DEPO example offers no additional information), and Grattan replied that it did not, per the intention of the law's authors. Now Tim asks whether it applies in the context of the prior auction. OOH, should it matter where the knowledge that partner's odd number of aces can only be one came from? OTOH, the rationale for not taking the IBer's partner's hand into account was to maintain the principle that TDs must be able to rule in mid-deal without inspecting hands, which doesn't apply here. Tim votes for taking the context provided by the complete auction into account. I abstain, awaiting further discussion. The floor is open. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 19:02:48 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:02:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2452646A-86A8-4F57-8964-9C4DCD54059E@starpower.net> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> <2452646A-86A8-4F57-8964-9C4DCD54059E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710181002m3b7e0218ja1e38531734e1b0b@mail.gmail.com> > Offering the opportunity to bridge players generally to > present their views direct would have opened up an > unacceptable risk of clogging to the procedure, and > in any case it was proper that players should present > opinions to their NBOs for consideration and influence upon the > replies NBOs would send. If players feel that their NBO is deaf to > their thoughts players should use the ballot box to encourage > greater attention for their correspondence; we do not > determine their representation or the corporate > > structure of the organizations of which they are members. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Reading through Grattan's email brings to mind some comments that I had regarding the new improved Law 80. As others have noted, LAw 80 seems to assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between a "National Bridge Association" and a geographical territory. 1. There are any number of geographic territories with multiple National Bridge Associations. (For example, North America has both the ACBL and the ABA) 2. Its unclear how the concept of a territory maps to anything as amorphous as the Internet. Its entirely possible that this might get much more confusing as time progresses. For example, Grattan suggests that members should use the power of the ballot box to effect change in out National Organization. Some of us would suggest that voting with our feet conveys a more powerful message... LAW 80 - REGULATION AND ORGANIZATION A. The Regulating Authority 1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is (a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation. (b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices. (c) for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place. 2. The Regulating Authority has the responsibiliti From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 19:19:32 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:19:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710181002m3b7e0218ja1e38531734e1b0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com> <200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com> <00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> <2452646A-86A8-4F57-8964-9C4DCD54059E@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0710181002m3b7e0218ja1e38531734e1b0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2007, at 1:02 PM, richard willey wrote: > 1. There are any number of geographic territories with multiple > National Bridge Associations. (For example, North America has both > the ACBL and the ABA) North America has the USBF, the ABA, the CBF, the FBM and yes, the ACBL. OTOH, North America is a continent, not a country. Per my reading of the WBF Constitution and ByLaws, a Zonal Authority is separate from its constituent NBOs. The ACBL's position as both is historical, an anomaly, and probably not in accordance with the aforementioned WBF documents. Not that I expect my opinion to change anything - even if I'm right. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 19:22:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:22:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com><000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP><2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com><042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <049401c8116c$4b401450$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Yes, in the end I have to make a guess but it will be a 75-25 guess > for me. But I have more clues than you. If I tell you "no agreement" > that will suggests that I have a 50-50 guess which > is not the case. Konrad understates his case. If he tells you "no agreement", you will not even be aware that he is facing a two-way guess for which probabilities could be estimated. > If I sit down to play with a player A.L. from Krak?w > and he responds 3D to my 1NT opening opening then > I am about 75% certain that this is the Polish 5431 convention - > D shortness, 5+C, and a 4M. We almost > never play together but I have knowm his team and his circle > long enough to judge that 5431 is more likely than > long diamonds. He also knows that this is I often play. > We haven't made any _agreement_ about 3D at all and > I am by no means certain that my guess is correct. > He might very well table xxx xx AKxxxx xx instead. That is what Konrad will be considering when he chooses his call. He has communicated it perfectly clearly to us. Why should he not offer the same information to his opponents? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 19:41:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <049e01c8116d$ef1223b0$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <002a01c811ae$1c6dd1c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > ................ > >> Huh? How can give I tell what our agreement is when I have > >> no idea what it is? > > > > Of course you cannot. > > > > But then you have failed to comply with Law 75C > > I have disclosed "all special information conveyed to myself > through partnership agreement or partnership experience". > > Where exactly have I broken this law? You have not disclosed all special information conveyed to you; you have only disclosed the information recognized by you. Your partner conveys information to you with his call but you cannot recognize this information beyond what you remember of your agreements. However, Law 75C requires you to disclose all relevant information without any exception for information that you may be unable to give because of your ignorance. > >Only if you can prove that you have no agreements on the actual situation > > You mean that I don't have a CPU about the 1NT bid? "...; but the Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Unless you can show some evidence to the fact that you have no agreement the Director shall presume that you have. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 18 19:43:29 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:43:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2DB860DD-D684-4979-B953-2CBD89B625A0@starpower.net> <200710181429.AA11098@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1742087D-4698-4BD0-8152-C5E365A59332@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Each member federation of the WBF, including the ACBL was able to show > the interim draft to those officials thought appropriate by that > federation, > provided that confidentialiity was maintained by all concerned. Of course they were "able to" show it to "appropriate" officials. They were probably even "able to" show it to some non-officials had they chosen to do so. They just didn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 19:48:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:48:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <20071018112131.8F672638CD5@f02.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002b01c811af$24f2cca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski .............. > > Who has ever said anything about telling partner which alternative the > > player selects? > > > > A David Burn. > > "I would have no objection if the TD were to say to North-South: > 'In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the > possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly'". > > If he didn't mean selecting one of the given meanings > by discussing it at the table during the auction > ("I will treat their 1NT as showing spades, partner") then > why else would David write this sentence? In order to > mentally select one of the given possibilities without > telling my partner I don't need a TD. I cannot tell what David actually meant, but I shall understood him to suggest that the Director could tell opponents to make up their minds individually and call accordingly without telling partner which understanding they selected. Any discussion between partners at this time is of course out of question. After the auction the non-offending side would be entitled to redress if they could show probable damage because of the erroneous, incomplete or ambiguous disclosure given to them from opponents. Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:18:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:18:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <002b01c811af$24f2cca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <20071018112131.8F672638CD5@f02.poczta.interia.pl> <002b01c811af$24f2cca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710181118p193041aaw7732e9e8e175146@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > .............. > > > Who has ever said anything about telling partner which alternative the > > > player selects? > > > > > > > A David Burn. > > > > "I would have no objection if the TD were to say to North-South: > > 'In the circumstances, I will allow you to select which of the > > possibilities you are going to believe, and bid accordingly'". > > > > If he didn't mean selecting one of the given meanings > > by discussing it at the table during the auction > > ("I will treat their 1NT as showing spades, partner") then > > why else would David write this sentence? In order to > > mentally select one of the given possibilities without > > telling my partner I don't need a TD. > > I cannot tell what David actually meant, but I shall understood him to > suggest that the Director could tell opponents to make up their minds > individually and call accordingly without telling partner which > understanding they selected. > > Any discussion between partners at this time is of course out of question. > > After the auction the non-offending side would be entitled to redress if > they could show probable damage because of the erroneous, incomplete or > ambiguous disclosure given to them from opponents. > As Konrad said, you don't need the director to tell you to choose one and hope it works---you could have figured out that option yourself. David knows this full well, so there is zero chance that David means it Sven's way. David meant something special and unusual: He means it Konrad's way, or something close to it. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 18 20:25:16 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:25:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710181118p193041aaw7732e9e8e175146@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071018112131.8F672638CD5@f02.poczta.interia.pl> <002b01c811af$24f2cca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710181118p193041aaw7732e9e8e175146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003601c811b4$3f50bb20$bdf23160$@com> [JF] David meant something special and unusual: He means it Konrad's way, or something close to it. [DALB] David means what he said in his post earlier today, which was: No one said anything about it explicitly, but it is what I had in mind. In Konrad's example: West North East South 1H 1NT ? where West has explained 1NT as "either Raptor or natural, I'm not sure", a practical possibility may be for the TD to tell South "you can decide (and tell North) whether you're bidding over Raptor or bidding over natural". As I have said, this is illegal - but a way round this illegality occurs to me. The offence here is that North will act on the UI transmitted by South. The director can ask East-West if they mind this, and since East-West have caused all the problems in the first place they ought not to mind, whereupon the director can obtain East-West's request to use L81C8 to waive the penalties that would otherwise be incurred by North-South under L16. In trying to accomplish the difficult task of implementing the Laws (which were designed for play at levels where people at least had a system, even if they occasionally forgot it), bridge clubs face many problems that are incapable of resolution. I don't mind in the least if clubs occasionally resort to methods that would not be countenanced in higher-level tournament play. After all, the people are there to play bridge. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 20:54:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:54:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kiwi Law Blawg - Bridge Laws Mailing List [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law students may be interested in using the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge as a case study. These rules are discussed on this blog / mailing list, which contains high level esoteric theorising on the principles of legal interpretation as applied to the card game of bridge. http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/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 svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 18 20:58:40 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:58:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710181118p193041aaw7732e9e8e175146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c811b8$e5fc48f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > .............. > > I cannot tell what David actually meant, but I shall understood him to > > suggest that the Director could tell opponents to make up their minds > > individually and call accordingly without telling partner which > > understanding they selected. > > > > Any discussion between partners at this time is of course out of > question. > > > > After the auction the non-offending side would be entitled to redress if > > they could show probable damage because of the erroneous, incomplete or > > ambiguous disclosure given to them from opponents. > > > > As Konrad said, you don't need the director to tell you to choose one > and hope it works---you could have figured out that option yourself. In the meantime David has himself clarified what he meant. But let me point out that it is not uncommon for a Director when summoned to a table to give instructions that the players could have figured out themselves without his assistance. That doesn't in any way make calling the Director inappropriate. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 21:15:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:15:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00eb01c81199$eac5d000$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: [snip] >tell grattan that I believed he should be proud of his >swansong. (What the hell, i'm always in trouble, but I >genuinely meant it). john > >*swansong - based on the myth that a swan only sings >when it is dying; and thusly one's final great work. >(Vide Mozart's requiem for example) Richard Hills: Surely Grattan's best work is yet to come. What better way could Grattan choose to celebrate his 100th birthday than by producing the 2025 Laws of Duplicate Bridge? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 21:19:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:19:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <56D0988C-FB25-421D-A145-8E1815637AB7@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>Their problem, so to speak, wasn't inappropriate >>leaks, but rather the lack of appropriate ones. Ed Reppert: >Heh. Indeed. Richard Hills: No. 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 Oct 18 21:32:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:32:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2D9EEA30-E722-45EE-8852-32B8828C2105@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] >>There is a problem in bridge. Those with power want to hoard it >>to themselves, and that's why we get this ridiculous secretive >>mentality, plus this delusion (I'm being charitable) that the >>grass-roots player can refer opinions upward and actually have >>them considered at the highest level. Ed Reppert: >The desire to accumulate and hold power is not a bridge problem >- it's a human problem. I'm not sure there is a solution, save >perhaps for us all to become more than human - whatever that >means. Richard Hills: By that logic, Grattan Endicott is a superhumanly decent gentleman. For the greater good, Grattan twice voluntarily delegated some of his coordinating powers during the drafting process, in accordance with the principle laid out in Law 81D. Delegation of Duties The Endicott may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but Grattan is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 18 22:56:17 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:56:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3218879F-D7FA-4908-B5E1-2818E74CC9D0@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Brian Meadows: > > [snip] > >>> There is a problem in bridge. Those with power want to hoard it >>> to themselves, and that's why we get this ridiculous secretive >>> mentality, plus this delusion (I'm being charitable) that the >>> grass-roots player can refer opinions upward and actually have >>> them considered at the highest level. > > Ed Reppert: > >> The desire to accumulate and hold power is not a bridge problem >> - it's a human problem. I'm not sure there is a solution, save >> perhaps for us all to become more than human - whatever that >> means. > > Richard Hills: > > By that logic, Grattan Endicott is a superhumanly decent > gentleman. For the greater good, Grattan twice voluntarily > delegated some of his coordinating powers during the drafting > process, in accordance with the principle laid out in > > Law 81D. Delegation of Duties > > The Endicott may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but > Grattan is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their > correct performance. > > ;-) I'm not at all sure what "by that logic" means in this context. Are you saying that the desire to accumulate and hold power is not a problem of humans generally, rather than bridge administrators particularly? Or do you mean something else? As a Naval Officer, I've known for a very long time that one can delegate authority, but one cannot delegate responsibility. What else is new? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 23:35:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:35:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Index [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: It is compulsory for every Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG) to create a personal Mission Statement. Unfortunately, I got a bit carried away when I created my own personal Mission Statement, as I kept inserting jokes into it, so it is now thirty pages long. ;-) Therefore, I was forced to use my skills acquired by working on the 2007 Lawbook, therefore created an Index for my Mission Statement (pages 28 and 29). Since a few other blmlers may possibly share my weird sense of humour, I am willing to email copies of my personal Mission Statement upon request. 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 18 22:58:45 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:58:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <7EAC5F71-476A-4486-BD22-E0E9C26AA696@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c811e8$cb65f240$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > If you merely claim "no > agreement", but have sufficient knowledge of partner's likely > tendencies to assume that partner could only have intended his call > to mean either A or B, you will be found to have given MI. > > You are entitled in this situation to choose a call that best caters > to the possibility that partner might have intended either A or B, > without taking any other potential meanings into consideration. So > are your opponents. > I have never understood this approach. My opponents always "guess" right and I am left in the dark. Moreover, the partner is made aware of the doubt, and this UI may color his future actions. If this is supposed to protect me as an opponent, I don't want such protection. Provided that the opponent is going to take some action based on A or B, he should without waffling explain partner's call as the one he will assume. If he is right then the partnership is in agreement, no problem, no MI. If he is wrong and there is damage, we get redress for the MI. If he is not going to take any action, e.g., he is out of the auction in any case, no *de facto* agreement exists and he should tell us of the possibilities. WTP? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 19 03:09:01 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:09:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> [nige1] A practical question that interests system-mongers is whether it is legal to change the meaning of a your call depending on whether you condone or reject opponent's earlier illegal call. On RGB, most agreed with David Stevenson, who deemed it legal. It seems that many top pairs benefit from detailed agreements. A dissenting minority -- mainly me as usual :( -- thought it should be illegal -- and that a way to to remove temptation would be to withdraw the option to accept an illegal call. Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? [ton] Why is the desert of doubt the playing field when local legislation is asked for? Yes, we made this 'local' legislation. [nige1] Good question, Ton :) Few ordinary BLMLers appear to have sufficient trust in their local local legislature to want them to decide such issues. It is law-makers, directors, and administrators who seem to hanker after the Tower of Babel. The important point is that providing a *default law* on an issue like this need not prevent each legislature from doing its own thing. Each such default can be regarded as *insurance* against the possibility that a local legislature forgets to remedy that gap in the law-book. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 19 03:45:17 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:45:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> [nigel] Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For example... [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : I'm a little surprised you classify those as the main controversies. IMOBO, point B is tackled by L73D1 (it's hasty indeed, and making it or not can easily transmit information), and point C by L81C6, which would have been phrased another way if the legislator wanted to avoid the TDs mixing in. [nige2] I hoped that the topic title would make clear that these were *not* necessarily the most important questions discussed here and on RGB. But the questions under dispute are easy to state and contributors complained that the old laws are unclear on these issues. I hoped that the new lawbook would settle them but I don't know if it does. Do law-makers regard [A] as potato still too hot to handle? Do the new laws resolve any other long-running disputes? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 19 05:05:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:05:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47181F02.4010601@ntlworld.com> [nigel] Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For example... [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : I'm a little surprised you classify those as the main controversies. IMOBO, point B is tackled by L73D1 (it's hasty indeed, and making it or not can easily transmit information), and point C by L81C6, which would have been phrased another way if the legislator wanted to avoid the TDs mixing in. [nige2] I hoped that the topic title would make clear that these were *not* necessarily the most important questions discussed here and on RGB. But the questions under dispute are easy to state and contributors complained that the old laws are unclear on these issues. I hoped that the new lawbook would settle them but I don't know if it does. Do law-makers regard [A] as potato still too hot to handle? [nigel] Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For example... [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering with law-breaking? [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : I'm a little surprised you classify those as the main controversies. IMOBO, point B is tackled by L73D1 (it's hasty indeed, and making it or not can easily transmit information), and point C by L81C6, which would have been phrased another way if the legislator wanted to avoid the TDs mixing in. [nige2] I hoped that the topic title would make clear that these were *not* necessarily the most important questions discussed here and on RGB. But the questions under dispute are easy to state and contributors complained that the old laws are unclear on these issues. I hoped that the new lawbook would settle them but I don't know if it does. Do the new laws resolve any other long-running disputes? Do law-makers regard [A] as potato still too hot to handle? [nige3] Sorry Not [A] but [B]. It is [B] that the WBFLC may want to leave undecided. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 19 05:36:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:36:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Herman De Wael, 6th May 2001: >>But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to >>cash all trumps and then play the other suits. >> >>It is just not what a beginner would do. Peter Gill, 6th May 2001: >Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know >personally, is anything but a beginner. An expert card >player, deep thinker and exceedingly ethical player (in >fact, the rare kind of bridge player whose bridge record >might have been more glittering had he been less ethical, >sad but true to say), but no resemblance whatsoever to a >beginner. LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. D. Director's Considerations 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. 2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on his partner's selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays. 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills, 19th October 2007: Herman's 2001 point about "just not what a beginner would do" has been partially resolved by the new 2007 clause Law 70E2, and more fully resolved by the final word of "irrational" in the new 2007 clause Law 70E1. (But note that "irrational" has been deleted from the notorious footnote to the claim Laws.) Peter Gill's point about "might have been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true to say" raises the distasteful topic of the so-called best (more precisely, worst) way to cheat under the 1997 Lawbook. Until 2008, a cheating expert can gain many masterpoints and imps by simply perpetrating a quick-and-dirty claim against baffled bunny opponents. The baffled bunnies feel slightly uneasy, but the flaw in the cheating expert's claim is too subtle for those bunnies' skill level, so they allow the claim. Only after the bunnies return home, and then conduct an intensive analysis of the hand record, do they realise that they have been ripped off - but then it is too late, so the cheating expert laughs all the way to the bank. But from and after 2008, slightly uneasy baffled bunnies merely need to summon the Director, as the new bracketed phrase in the new 2007 Law 70B2 states: "but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections". Truth! Justice! And the American Way of Life! Cheating bridge experts will now have a switch to being cheating stud poker experts if they wish to maintain their pre-2008 lifestyle. "Rawhide" (chorus): Move 'em on, head 'em up, Head 'em up, move 'em out, Move 'em on, head 'em out Rawhide! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) E-Haa!!!!! 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 Fri Oct 19 07:29:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:29:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801c81211$3dc0ab00$489d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, 19th October 2007: > > Herman's 2001 point about "just not what a beginner would > do" has been partially resolved by the new 2007 clause > Law 70E2, and more fully resolved by the final word of > "irrational" in the new 2007 clause Law 70E1. (But note > that "irrational" has been deleted from the notorious > footnote to the claim Laws.) > +=+ Argued for in particular by Bill Schoder, it was a firm decision of the drafting committee that 'irrational' should be disconnected from any link with "class of player" and should have its dictionary meaning. So we took it out of the footnote, and out of the laws until it slipped into this one Law at a late stage in Shanghai. I am fully in accord with the decision that rationality is an absolute and has nothing to do with the quality of the player. [ 'irrational' = not rational, not logical, not reasonable 'absolute' (n) = a value which is universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 19 07:29:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:29:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801c81211$3dc0ab00$489d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, 19th October 2007: > > Herman's 2001 point about "just not what a beginner would > do" has been partially resolved by the new 2007 clause > Law 70E2, and more fully resolved by the final word of > "irrational" in the new 2007 clause Law 70E1. (But note > that "irrational" has been deleted from the notorious > footnote to the claim Laws.) > +=+ Argued for in particular by Bill Schoder, it was a firm decision of the drafting committee that 'irrational' should be disconnected from any link with "class of player" and should have its dictionary meaning. So we took it out of the footnote, and out of the laws until it slipped into this one Law at a late stage in Shanghai. I am fully in accord with the decision that rationality is an absolute and has nothing to do with the quality of the player. [ 'irrational' = not rational, not logical, not reasonable 'absolute' (n) = a value which is universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 09:33:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> Message-ID: Burn wrote: > One might as well say, for example, that if while a player is > considering his line of defence against four spades, his partner > says "We have three tricks", the player may now choose to cash a > fourth because the number of tricks his side has taken is always AI And indeed he may. It would depend on whether it was an LA to do otherwise. Since we are slapping his partner with a full board penalty for the interjection it won't happen again. (I'm assuming we're not talking about a situation where the player, because there is a discrepancy, has just asked "How many tricks do we have?"). > It is well established, because it is what the Laws say, that even > if a player realises before hearing his partner's explanation (or any > other kind of UI) that he has made an error of any kind, he must > continue in his error The laws do not say that. L16 speaks of extraneous information, Law73 of UI. The vulnerability on any given hand is neither. > (because he cannot demonstrate that he > realised the error before the explanation occurred). So bloody what! The *player* knows what kind of error he made and thus what actions are LAs. It is totally irrelevant whether he can convince a TD of the facts. Indeed a TD might well rule the contract back to 2H because he lacks evidence that it was a case of unnoticed vul rather than forgotten system but how a TD might rule doesn't affect what the LAs are. > In the given case, it does not matter whether when South opened 1NT > he had forgotten the system or the vulnerability; Of course it matters - he is allowed to base a decision on the vulnerability regardless of who has made mention of it (even if his partner has drawn particular attention to the vulnerability then it is UI that his partner wants him to pay attention to it but the vul itself is *always* AI). > hi> attention has been drawn to his error by his partner's > explanation, and he must not attempt to compensate in any way. In this instance his partner's "15-17" caused him to notice the actual vulnerability but it really doesn't matter. As far as the player is concerned *he* knows he didn't realise he was vul when he opened and he knows he *was (and is)* vul before his second call. > Give the hand as a bidding problem to as many people as you wish > (as a screen test, no info from partner but opener has realised the > vul by the time he must make his second call) and I think 2S will be > a universal > choice. > > [DALB] > > Of course it would. But so what? So, my little bird-brained friend, you will discover that passing 2H is not a logical alternative for a person who has become aware of the actual vulnerability. You may delete all knowledge of his partner saying "15-17" from his memory if you wish - but what you cannot, and may not, delete is the knowledge he received from looking up and seeing the RED band on his side of the board. Tim From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 19 10:14:06 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:14:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> Message-ID: <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> "If only you did not so often try to be clever, you would not so often end up looking foolish." Victor Mollo [TWM] So, my little bird-brained friend, you will discover that passing 2H is not a logical alternative for a person who has become aware of the actual vulnerability. You may delete all knowledge of his partner saying "15-17" from his memory if you wish - but what you cannot, and may not, delete is the knowledge he received from looking up and seeing the RED band on his side of the board. [DALB] >From the footnote to Law 75, mutatis mutandis: In both cases [South's bid is correct, North's explanation wrong; South's bid is wrong, North's explanation correct] South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 1NT bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorised information'' (see Law 16A), so South must be careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, if North responds two hearts, South has the unauthorised information that this bid shows a spade suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a natural and non-forcing bid of two hearts. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 19 10:11:17 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:11:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" References: <4716874E005B2E38@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <004901c81227$bc7492c0$a5c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "not have the force of law" > Good question Ferry, > > This seems kind of a semantic problem. > Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee > distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of > jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise, > discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something > wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be > close to that famous force. > +=+ A problem arises if the WBFLC's power to interpret the meaning of the laws is confused with a power not within its remit - that of making bridge judgements in the application of law. This function lies within the remit of the Appeals Committee. So examples the WBFLC produces to illustrate laws are subject to the caveat that any bridge judgement it may suggest in an example is assumptive and the WBFLC cannot impose it on the Director or the Appeals Committee. We must not think that we can create 'jurisprudence' unless the WBF Appeals Committee supports bridge judgements deployed in examples we produce; jurisprudence derives from case law and while the WBFLC defines the meaning of the law, the application of that meaning to cases is the responsibility of others. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 19 10:11:17 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:11:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" References: <4716874E005B2E38@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <004901c81227$bc7492c0$a5c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "not have the force of law" > Good question Ferry, > > This seems kind of a semantic problem. > Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee > distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of > jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise, > discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something > wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be > close to that famous force. > +=+ A problem arises if the WBFLC's power to interpret the meaning of the laws is confused with a power not within its remit - that of making bridge judgements in the application of law. This function lies within the remit of the Appeals Committee. So examples the WBFLC produces to illustrate laws are subject to the caveat that any bridge judgement it may suggest in an example is assumptive and the WBFLC cannot impose it on the Director or the Appeals Committee. We must not think that we can create 'jurisprudence' unless the WBF Appeals Committee supports bridge judgements deployed in examples we produce; jurisprudence derives from case law and while the WBFLC defines the meaning of the law, the application of that meaning to cases is the responsibility of others. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 19 10:47:39 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:47:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> Message-ID: <000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> It has just occurred to me that the footnote to Law 75 is yet another refutation of the dWS: [Law 75] In both cases [South's bid is correct, North's explanation wrong; South's bid is wrong, North's explanation correct] South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 1NT bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful not to base subsequent actions on this information. [DALB] Now, a "subsequent action" includes an explanation of North's 5D bid in the dWS example (South bids 4NT for minors, North explains it as Blackwood and responds 5D), which South must therefore not misexplain according to the partnership methods. Steve Willner observes correctly in another post that the dreaded L75D2 has not been obliterated; instead, it has become L20F5a. I thank him for the information with all the warmth I can muster. David Burn London, England From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 10:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > "but the Director's considerations are not limited only > to the opponents' objections". That's not a change in law - a TD's considerations were never so limited under the 1997 laws. The limit will continue to be objections+the TD's own (often bunny-like) ability+any consultation the TD might undertake. Of course the new law makes that issue a little clearer, no bad thing. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 10:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] New L40.6 Message-ID: We now have: 6. (a) When explaining the significance of partner?s call or play in reply to opponent?s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. Previously we had two categories of knowledge here - "partnership stuff" (which was disclosable) and "other stuff" (which wasn't). We now appear to have three categories. There's still "partnership stuff" (still clearly disclosable). There's "generally known stuff" (which probably covers the suit rankings, 13 cards in a suit kinda thing but very little else if some of the players I know are anything to go by). Then there's everything else I know [i.e. that which I have learnt over 35 years of playing with a range of partners for MPs/IMPs/ money and in a wide variety of environments and by reading many books (including Ottlik/Kelsey) which cannot conceivably be referred to as "matters generally known to bridge players". I believe this latter stuff [when not subsumed into partnership stuff for a specific partner] is not disclosable (as it wasn't under the old laws) but I do feel the laws should address the issue. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 10:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > The important point is that providing a *default law* on an issue > like this need not prevent each legislature from doing its own > thing. There is a default. Partnership agreements in this situation are legal but *may* be deemed special and then restricted by the RA. Tim From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 19 10:50:41 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:50:41 +0900 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Countdown In-Reply-To: <1742087D-4698-4BD0-8152-C5E365A59332@starpower.net> References: <1742087D-4698-4BD0-8152-C5E365A59332@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200710190850.AA11105@geller204.nifty.com> >> Each member federation of the WBF, including the ACBL was able to show >> the interim draft to those officials thought appropriate by that >> federation, >> provided that confidentialiity was maintained by all concerned. > >Of course they were "able to" show it to "appropriate" officials. >They were probably even "able to" show it to some non-officials had >they chosen to do so. They just didn't. Each federation was able to show the draft laws to whoever that federation thought was appropriate, subject to conditions of confidentiality, and then the federation formulated its collective opinion and sent it back to the drafting subcommittee. So "officials" includes the cognizant employees of the federation, presumably its Laws Commission, and anyone else the laws commission or management wanted to temporarily add to its committee on an ad hoc basis. I am still a member of the ACBL, but having lived in Japan for the past 23 years I don't really feel qualified to comment on the ACBL. If you feel that current ACBL procedures are insufficently open to membership you have a variety of ways to try to recify that (letters to the editor of the ACBL Bulletin, get involved in ACBL or district or unit committees, etc.). But I would point out that if the ACBL were to hold a consultation exercise involving the general membership someone would have to sort through all the comments-- a long and costly job. (Of course they could simply chuck all the comments in the trash, but I for one, and probably most other people as well, would be much angrier if my opinion is solicited and then ignored rather than not solicited in the first place.) Here is a list of the members of the ACBL Laws Commission. http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMembers.html If you happen to know any of them personally, or if not if you go up to one of them and introduce yourself, you'll probably get more impact than if you simply write to ACBL. (At least that's my guess.) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 19 12:31:09 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:31:09 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 18/10/2007 19:18:49 GMT Standard Time, jfusselman at gmail.com writes: >David meant something special and unusual: He means >it Konrad's way, or something close to it. I think we are quite capable of reading and interpreting David's prose without having another member of BLML telling us what he thinks David was trying to say. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 19 12:44:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:44:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> <000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> Message-ID: <47188A74.5070601@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > It has just occurred to me that the footnote to Law 75 is yet another > refutation of the dWS: > > [Law 75] > > In both cases [South's bid is correct, North's explanation wrong; South's > bid is wrong, North's explanation correct] South, having heard North's > explanation, knows that his own 1NT bid has been misinterpreted. This > knowledge is "unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be > careful not to base subsequent actions on this information. > > [DALB] > > Now, a "subsequent action" includes an explanation of North's 5D bid in the > dWS example (South bids 4NT for minors, North explains it as Blackwood and > responds 5D), which South must therefore not misexplain according to the > partnership methods. > Now the question must be asked in how far a footnote which was intended as an illustration can alter the meaning of the literal words of some other law. L16 clearly states that "calls and plays" may not be based on UI. If the footnote uses "actions", is this a shorter form of "calls and plays" or do they really intend to go further than that? I think that the same arguments we used to counter the reasoning are applicable to the interpretation of the footnote. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 13:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> Message-ID: Burn Drivelled: > >From the footnote to Law 75, mutatis mutandis: > > In both cases [South's bid is correct, North's explanation wrong; > South's bid is wrong, North's explanation correct] South, having > heard North's explanation, knows that his own 1NT bid has been > misinterpreted. But which is irrelevant in this case. South *knows* based solely on the vulnerability and the fact that he (albeit he alone) *knows* he opened 1N believing himself to be nv. There isn't any doubt about any of this in South's mind. Just check the "facts" that South has in his head at the point he must make his second call. 1. He opened 1N believing himself nv and intending to show 12-14 (AI) 2. He is actually vulnerable (he looked at the board subsequently - AI) 3. He knows his vulnerable NT is strong and partner's 2H is a transfer 4. Based on all that (and *nothing* else) he knows he has misdescribed his hand and that his partner is showing spades and that his partner will expect more points from him than he actually has. There is not one iota of UI in any of the above. It doesn't matter that he only checked the vulnerability because of what his partner announced. The vulnerability itself is *always* AI. He has UI that partner actually knows the vulnerability but surely we cannot suggest that it is an LA to assume that partner also believed his side non-vul? > This knowledge is "unauthorised information'' (see Law 16A), so South > must be careful not to base subsequent actions on this information > (if he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For > instance, if North) > responds two hearts, South has the unauthorised information that > this bid shows a spade suit; That would apply if South had forgotten the system (Steve original posited as absolute *fact* that this was a case of unnoticed vulnerability). The LAs for a person who forgot the system are different to those of a person who knew the system but has subsequently discovered the vulnerability - it shouldn't be hard to see that. It may not be easy for a TD to work out into which category the player falls but the player *knows* the answer. A TD might reasonably rule that he is basic an adjusted score on a system forget due to lack of evidence of it being a case of unnoticed vulnerability but that's not germane to the player at the table. Take a slightly different case. Same system, same 1N opener, same announcement but this time the player is genuinely nv. Now he knows (from the announcement alone) that either his pard has forgotten the system or believes himself vulnerable. He also knows that partner *thinks* 2H is showing spades. That's all UI to him because the information is not contained within the known system and labelling of the board. Tim From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 19 14:01:55 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:01:55 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: >In a message dated 19/10/2007 12:55:47 GMT Standard Time, twm at cix.co.uk >drivels: >2. He is actually vulnerable (he looked at the board subsequently - AI) The reason he looked at the board subsequently was because of his partner's explanation; he wanted to find out who was due to a visit to Specsavers and he discovered it was him, but from the UI of his partner's explanation. Paul From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Oct 19 14:16:15 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:16:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: Message-ID: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david> From: > >In a message dated 19/10/2007 12:55:47 GMT Standard Time, twm at cix.co.uk >>drivels: > >>2. He is actually vulnerable (he looked at the board subsequently - AI) > > The reason he looked at the board subsequently was because of his > partner's > explanation; he wanted to find out who was due to a visit to Specsavers > and he > discovered it was him, but from the UI of his partner's explanation. > > Paul If we take a different scenario - A player wishes to open 1NT and is surprised to see his partner alert (UI). He looks down and sees that that the bidding card in front of him is 2C (AI). It is well established that he can now rectify his mechanical error, despite the attention having been drawn to it by UI. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.1/1078 - Release Date: 18/10/2007 17:47 From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 19 14:48:54 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:48:54 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 19/10/2007 13:16:12 GMT Standard Time, david.j.barton at lineone.net writes: >If we take a different scenario - A player wishes to open 1NT and is >surprised to see his partner alert (UI). He looks down and sees that that the bidding >card in front of him is 2C (AI). It is well established that he can now rectify >his mechanical error, despite the attention having been drawn to it by UI. That is correct. But the stated case involved a brain error in mistaking the vulnerability, not a mechanical error. So your example is completely irrelevant. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 19 14:51:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul wrote: > >2. He is actually vulnerable (he looked at the board subsequently > - AI) > > The reason he looked at the board subsequently was because of his > partner's explanation; he wanted to find out who was due to a > visit to Specsavers and he discovered it was him, but from the UI > of his partner's explanation. We know *why* he looked at the board. We know he only discovered the vulnerability because he looked. It doesn't matter. He had no choice in law but to look (his announcing obligations being dependent on what he sees). Once he *knows* the vulnerability it is something on which he is entitled to base his decisions. There are simply no circumstances in which the vulnerability on the board in play can be treated as UI (the new laws make this a little clearer but it has always been the case). Speculation as to what he might have done had he not (by some means) become aware of the vulnerability is irrelevant. I'm not trying to be clever about this one - anybody is welcome to check with the WBF as to whether the vulnerability itself can ever be UI. Inferences from a partner's expressed concern *about* the vulnerability are a different matter - but that doesn't apply to the case in question. Tim From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Oct 19 14:59:35 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david> References: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <4718AA37.8060009@t-online.de> David Barton schrieb: > From: > > > > >>> In a message dated 19/10/2007 12:55:47 GMT Standard Time, twm at cix.co.uk >>> drivels: >>> >>> 2. He is actually vulnerable (he looked at the board subsequently - AI) >>> >> The reason he looked at the board subsequently was because of his >> partner's >> explanation; he wanted to find out who was due to a visit to Specsavers >> and he >> discovered it was him, but from the UI of his partner's explanation. >> >> Paul >> > > If we take a different scenario - A player wishes to open 1NT and is > surprised > to see his partner alert (UI). He looks down and sees that that the bidding > card > in front of him is 2C (AI). It is well established that he can now rectify > his > mechanical error, despite the attention having been drawn to it by UI. > The big difference is that in 25A cases he never intended to bid what he actually placed on the table, while in cases of e.g. mistaken vulnerability he _intended_ his original bid, and now learns that he should have had a second look. In the first case we have a mechanical error, in the second a mental one. Different kettle of fish altogether. From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 19 15:09:57 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:09:57 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 19/10/2007 13:52:28 GMT Standard Time, twm at cix.co.uk writes: >There are simply no circumstances in which the vulnerability on the board in play >can be treated as UI (the new laws make this a little clearer but it has always been >the case). I am not arguing that the vulnerability of the board is UI. I argue that the fact that he was mistaken as to the vulnerability at the time of his 1NT opener is only gleaned from the explanation which does not accord with his recollection of what he thought the vulnerability was when he opened. He is entitled to know what the vulnerability is now; he is entitled to know what it was when he opened. But he is not entitled to be jolted into realising he made a mistake by the answer his partner gives. We pretend he is deaf, but not dumb, but he "gets a display of everything his partner said before the opponents lead (or at the end of the hand if he is defending), so that he can correct any errors of explanation as to the system". With screens he would not know that he had made the mistake (although he might well realise it as some point in the auction; he might not). That should apply here. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 19 15:44:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:44:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000001c811e8$cb65f240$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0710171448sd3d2cf8pa24e27cdf1eb5ce6@mail.gmail.com> <000301c8110c$72451970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0710171622u37f93a97uafabc5a84b5f5914@mail.gmail.com> <042401c81159$9c4e5540$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <000d01c81161$dfde8020$20195e47@DFYXB361> <7EAC5F71-476A-4486-BD22-E0E9C26AA696@starpower.net> <000001c811e8$cb65f240$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <8C7A3C89-3110-4380-9FE7-FCEC5B4D950E@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> If you merely claim "no >> agreement", but have sufficient knowledge of partner's likely >> tendencies to assume that partner could only have intended his call >> to mean either A or B, you will be found to have given MI. >> >> You are entitled in this situation to choose a call that best caters >> to the possibility that partner might have intended either A or B, >> without taking any other potential meanings into consideration. So >> are your opponents. >> > I have never understood this approach. My opponents always "guess" > right and I am left in the dark. Moreover, the partner is made aware > of the doubt, and this UI may color his future actions. If this is > supposed to protect me as an opponent, I don't want such protection. > > Provided that the opponent is going to take some action based on A or > B, he should without waffling explain partner's call as the one he > will assume. If he is right then the partnership is in agreement, no > problem, no MI. If he is wrong and there is damage, we get redress for > the MI. > > If he is not going to take any action, e.g., he is out of the auction > in any case, no *de facto* agreement exists and he should tell us of > the possibilities. > > WTP? The problem is that "some action [which is] based on [']A or B[']" is not at all the same thing as "some action which is either based on A or based on B", and the former may be different from either of the two possbilities denoted by the latter. An intelligent opponent will choose the former. When faced with two possibilities, you don't just "guess" one of them and ignore the other; you take your uncertainty into account in choosing your actions. You can't expect me to "explain partner's call as the one [I] will assume" unless you expect me to "assume" one possibility to the exclusion of the other; why would you expect me to do that? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 19 16:24:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:24:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 9:09 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > A practical question that interests system-mongers is whether it is > legal to change the meaning of a your call depending on whether you > condone or reject opponent's earlier illegal call. On RGB, most agreed > with David Stevenson, who deemed it legal. It seems that many top > pairs benefit from detailed agreements. > > A dissenting minority -- mainly me as usual :( -- thought it should > be illegal -- and that a way to to remove temptation would be to > withdraw the option to accept an illegal call. > > Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on > in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? > > [ton] > Why is the desert of doubt the playing field when local legislation is > asked > for? Yes, we made this 'local' legislation. > > [nige1] > Good question, Ton :) Few ordinary BLMLers appear to have sufficient > trust in their local local legislature to want them to decide such > issues. > > It is law-makers, directors, and administrators who seem to hanker > after the Tower of Babel. > > The important point is that providing a *default law* on an issue like > this need not prevent each legislature from doing its own thing. > > Each such default can be regarded as *insurance* against the > possibility that a local legislature forgets to remedy that gap in the > law-book. The "default law" here is clearly established, and does not appear to have changed. Such agreements are "by default" not prohibited, although an RA may "override the default" and bar them if it wishes, as some (including the ACBL) have done. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 19 16:33:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:33:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [nigel] > Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For > example... > > [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? > or does it have to be held *stationary*? > > [nige2] > > But the questions under dispute are easy to state and contributors > complained that the old laws are unclear on these issues. I hoped that > the new lawbook would settle them but I don't know if it does. > > Do law-makers regard [A] as potato still too hot to handle? I imagine the law-makers understood that trying to draw a sharp bright line through a very grey area would only lead to contentious situations, and that some close calls are just better left to the TD on the spot. Like pornography, "played position" is one of those things that's a lot harder to define than it is to know when you see it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 19 16:53:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:53:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <70F08EDE-1203-44E0-A767-AB710148CAF9@starpower.net> On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:36 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION... > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes > play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved. > > Richard Hills, 19th October 2007: > > Herman's 2001 point about "just not what a beginner would > do" has been partially resolved by the new 2007 clause > Law 70E2, and more fully resolved by the final word of > "irrational" in the new 2007 clause Law 70E1. (But note > that "irrational" has been deleted from the notorious > footnote to the claim Laws.) Isn't that going backwards? After the WBF issued an interpretation of the 1997 law which resolved the ambiguity in the old footnote in favor of the more lenient (for experts, at least) interpretation, they now appear to have unexpectedly produced new law even harsher than the previous interpretation which they rejected. I like it (better than what we had, if not as much as the rejected interpretation of the old law), but very much doubt that it is what they intended to do. One can hardly argue that "irrational" plays are neither careless nor inferior, and the footnote no longer excludes them from consideration. It will take quite a stretch to re- interpret this one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 19 17:06:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:06:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: <000801c81211$3dc0ab00$489d87d9@Hellen> References: <000801c81211$3dc0ab00$489d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2E2C51F1-8CE1-409D-9920-1DBDD07438C1@starpower.net> On Oct 19, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: > >> Herman's 2001 point about "just not what a beginner would >> do" has been partially resolved by the new 2007 clause >> Law 70E2, and more fully resolved by the final word of >> "irrational" in the new 2007 clause Law 70E1. (But note >> that "irrational" has been deleted from the notorious >> footnote to the claim Laws.) >> > +=+ Argued for in particular by Bill Schoder, it was a firm > decision of the drafting committee that 'irrational' should be > disconnected from any link with "class of player" and should > have its dictionary meaning. So we took it out of the footnote, > and out of the laws until it slipped into this one Law at a late > stage in Shanghai. I am fully in accord with the decision that > rationality is an absolute and has nothing to do with the quality > of the player. > [ 'irrational' = not rational, not logical, not reasonable > 'absolute' (n) = a value which is universally valid or > which may be viewed without relation to other things.] I absolutely agree that "rationality is an absolute and has nothing to do with the quality of player"; that's just plain English. But a play which is irrational cannot be neither careless nor inferior, and the inclusion of "irrational" in the old footnote did established a "floor" -- albeit one that did not, or should not have, been a function of "class of player" -- below which a play could not be considered "normal". That floor is now gone. L70E1 restores it explicitly for L70E1, but not for L70C-D. I predict we will miss it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 17:58:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:58:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710190858s5889e15w9e0ebec4473dd120@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/07, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 18/10/2007 19:18:49 GMT Standard Time, > jfusselman at gmail.com writes: > > >David meant something special and unusual: He means > >it Konrad's way, or something close to it. > > I think we are quite capable of reading and interpreting David's prose > without having another member of BLML telling us what he thinks David was trying > to say. > You misunderstood me. Yes, we all are quite capable. Nothing I wrote prevents this. In a way, you make my point---that David's writing is clear and makes good points, and it is so clear that it can be reliably paraphrased by lots of readers. Some writing on BLML is not that clear. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 19 18:49:14 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:49:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <70F08EDE-1203-44E0-A767-AB710148CAF9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .......... > Isn't that going backwards? Maybe it is going backwards. I for one have never liked the "irrational for the class of player" clause because I have seen far too many "irrational" errors made by top ranked players, particularly towards the end of an exhausting session. If a player claims and the claim eventually turns out to depend on something like a reverse dummy, partial elimination and then a double trump squeeze and the player said nothing to that effect with his claim I would never let him get away with a statement to the effect that it would be irrational for him not to be aware of it. I would rule that the reason he did not point out the key elements with his claim was that he was unaware of them at the time he made his claim. Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister champion. Regards Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Oct 19 18:49:57 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david> <4718AA37.8060009@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c81270$15278dd0$0300a8c0@david> From: "Matthias Berghaus" >>> >> >> If we take a different scenario - A player wishes to open 1NT and is >> surprised >> to see his partner alert (UI). He looks down and sees that that the >> bidding >> card >> in front of him is 2C (AI). It is well established that he can now >> rectify >> his >> mechanical error, despite the attention having been drawn to it by UI. >> > > The big difference is that in 25A cases he never intended to bid what he > actually placed on the table, while in cases of e.g. mistaken > vulnerability he _intended_ his original bid, and now learns that he > should have had a second look. In the first case we have a mechanical > error, in the second a mental one. Different kettle of fish altogether. > Why? What laws are you applying? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.1/1078 - Release Date: 18/10/2007 17:47 From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 19 18:50:36 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:50:36 EDT Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty Message-ID: In a message dated 19/10/2007 16:59:00 GMT Standard Time, jfusselman at gmail.com writes: >You misunderstood me. Yes, we all are quite capable. Nothing I wrote >prevents this. In a way, you make my point---that David's writing is >clear and makes good points, and it is so clear that it can be >reliably paraphrased by lots of readers. Some writing on BLML is not >that clear. Yes I did misunderstand, and apologise for my misinterpretation. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 22 11:50:15 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:50:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] No traffic? Message-ID: <005701c81491$0756c680$70a787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I have received nothing from blml since 19 October so I am testing to see if I am in touch. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bbickford at charter.net Mon Oct 22 00:41:27 2007 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:41:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] list inactivr? Message-ID: <002501c81433$8473ac40$a2c5834b@D2GX7R11> The last message I received was 12:50PM 10/19; what gives????????? Cheers............................/Bill Bickford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 21 20:10:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:10:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] British football (soccer (see British football (soccer) in Index (see Index))) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: You should see what happened to British football (soccer). Then there was a Big Bang!* * see exclamation Mark!** ** see Capitalisation, idioSyncratic Best wishes Richard James Hills, theia euryphaessa 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 Sun Oct 21 06:12:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Responses interspersed ~ G ~ +=+ ------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:48 AM Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > The new laws about kibitzers seem to be clearer :) > > Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? > > For example... > > [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? > or does it have to be held *stationary*? > +=+ If held momentarily in that position it must be played. +=+ > > [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed > to the current trick, without claiming? > +=+ See Law 41C. Apart from that there is no prohibition of making a lead from the hand that won the last trick even while players continue to inspect the previous trick. It is not an irregularity to do so. +=+ > > [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement > to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? < +=+ No +=+ < > Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering > law-breaking? > +=+ A matter for the training of TDs. If a TD notices something he must deal with it - usually after the hand is over if he has not been called. He is urged in many training programmes not to go looking for things. The view may vary as between differing bridge cultures. +=+ From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Sun Oct 21 11:19:11 2007 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:19:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Test References: Message-ID: <004501c813c3$716230b0$4101a8c0@Ken> No mails for a few days? K From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 21 04:13:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:13:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law" References: <00eb01c81199$eac5d000$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <00cf01c81388$19ef6ae0$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "not have the force of law" > > We expressed our concern; you and me, that the new Laws would be in > Grattanese. I find the substantial revision to be clearer than the > previous Laws, and closer to my perception of "How we play bridge" than > before. I somewhat impertinently had the temerity to tell grattan that I > believed he should be proud of his swansong. (What the hell, i'm always in > trouble, but I genuinely meant it). john > > *swansong - based on the myth that a swan only sings when it is dying; and > thusly one's final great work. (Vide Mozart's requiem for example) +=+ A very reasonable concern for any who had no experience of the range of expression I had used in commercial life - explaining gambling rules to LOLs who gamble and gambling practices to Royal Commissions - and who had no prescient awareness of the strong support Bill Schoder, in particular, and John Wignall would provide in this regard. Hints of the intellectual did creep in here and there - "incorporates the information contained", for example, words I supplied for a basic idea put forward by Al Levy in the WBFLC meeting and given shape by Chip Martel . The concept will be further defined by case law as we go along. As for swansongs - all in due time..... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 19 19:44:29 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:44:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <000301c81270$15278dd0$0300a8c0@david> References: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david> <4718AA37.8060009@t-online.de> <000301c81270$15278dd0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000101c81277$b83e54c0$28bafe40$@com> [Gampas] The big difference is that in 25A cases he never intended to bid what he actually placed on the table, while in cases of e.g. mistaken vulnerability he _intended_ his original bid, and now learns that he should have had a second look. In the first case we have a mechanical error, in the second a mental one. Different kettle of fish altogether. [David Barton] Why? What laws are you applying? [DALB] Law 25A says that: 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. When the player opened 1NT, he intended to open 1NT. Thus, the only call he may substitute for 1NT is 1NT. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 02:48:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:48:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com><471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1><47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <01b701c81380$a2f9f150$f9c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > On Oct 18, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Guthrie wrote: > >> [nigel] >> Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? For >> example... >> >> [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? >> or does it have to be held *stationary*? >> >> [nige2] >> >> But the questions under dispute are easy to state and contributors >> complained that the old laws are unclear on these issues. I hoped that >> the new lawbook would settle them but I don't know if it does. >> >> Do law-makers regard [A] as potato still too hot to handle? > > I imagine the law-makers understood that trying to draw a sharp > bright line through a very grey area would only lead to contentious > situations, and that some close calls are just better left to the TD > on the spot. Like pornography, "played position" is one of those > things that's a lot harder to define than it is to know when you see it. > +=+ Grattan: The point was discussed in Shanghai. The law was worded so that if fleetingly "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table" a card must be played. We removed any word that could suggest a period of time. The law activates the moment a card is so held. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 21 03:50:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:50:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu><471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> <471142E3.4040103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <00b801c81384$e7f2d0c0$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > Hi, > >> 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial >> games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. > > Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American territory? I.e. the > game will be in the US, thus ACBL land. > > (The last time I was on such a base, it looked like the US, pay in > US$ instead of DEM or NLG and the German/Dutch laws for shop opening > hours didn't apply which was great.) > > >> (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their >> games.) > > Yes, I wonder what problem we are trying to solve here ;-) > > Henk > +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 03:06:57 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000501c81249$d8831140$0300a8c0@david><4718AA37.8060009@t-online.de> <000301c81270$15278dd0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <01b901c81380$a4b31300$f9c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > > > >>>> >>> >>> If we take a different scenario - A player wishes to open 1NT >>> and is surprised to see his partner alert (UI). He looks down >>> and sees that that the bidding card in front of him is 2C (AI). >>> It is well established that he can now rectify his mechanical >>> error, despite the attention having been drawn to it by UI. >>> >> >> The big difference is that in 25A cases he never intended to bid >> what he actually placed on the table, while in cases of >> e.g. mistaken vulnerability he _intended_ his original bid, and >> now learns that he should have had a second look. In the first >> case we have a mechanical error, in the second a mental one. >> Different kettle of fish altogether. >> > > Why? > > What laws are you applying? > +=+ When considering Law 25 ("an unintended call") consult the definition of 'unintended'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 12:09:51 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:09:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] The "default law" here is clearly established, and does not appear to have changed. Such agreements are "by default" not prohibited, although an RA may "override the default" and bar them if it wishes, as some (including the ACBL) have done. [nigel] Thank you Eric: Assuming that you're right, why don't the new laws clearly state that it's OK for your agreements to be contingent on infractions by opponents; and remind players to declare such agreements on their system cards; so that ordinary players, ignorant of such obscure interpretations, aren't kept at a disadvantage. I accept that among an inner circle of secretary birds, such agreements may be standard practice; but no ordinary player of my acquaintance has admitted to such an agreement. Ordinary players, whom I've recently asked, opine that they're illegal. We should be disabused. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 12:14:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:14:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <47194E3C.5030309@ntlworld.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <471724EF.000004.50719@CERAP-MATSH1> <47180C2D.9090104@ntlworld.com> <47194E3C.5030309@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471C780E.9070909@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] I imagine the law-makers understood that trying to draw a sharp bright line through a very grey area would only lead to contentious situations, and that some close calls are just better left to the TD on the spot. Like pornography, "played position" is one of those things that's a lot harder to define than it is to know when you see it. [nige1] Eric seems right: a stated intention of the new laws is to expand the role of the director, increasing reliance on his subjective judgment; and the WBFLC met that target. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 12:35:15 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <471C7AE0.7090908@ntlworld.com> References: <471939CD.3050909@ntlworld.com> <471C7AE0.7090908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471C7CE3.6020208@ntlworld.com> [nige1] I prefer Richard Hill's suggestion "If you don't know, then offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the meaning of his own call." If the law-book specified Richard's protocol, it would almost never be be invoked -- because players' memories would then improve, immediately and dramatically :) [Richard Hills] If David Burn had the copious spare time that I do, David might mention that what Nigel Guthrie has erroneously dubbed "Richard's protocol" is now included in the 2007 Lawbook. [TNLB L20F1] Except on the **instruction of the Director** replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call [nigel] Does L20F1 really recommend the Richard Hill Protocol? Even If so, the WBFLC rivals the Delphic oracle :) I am sure that Richard's protocol would immediately resolve disclosure problems (e.g. the Herman conjecture) and speed up the game considerably (prevarication is time-wasting). Although that saving would be less if a director always had to be involved. But for widespread implementation, TNLB should specify it clearly in detail. * T he N New (or should it be nebulous?) L aw B ook From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 12:37:17 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:37:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471C7C7F.8010507@ntlworld.com> References: <47155FAB.5000508@ntlworld.com><200710170235.AA11070@geller204.nifty.com><00ec01c81099$187969f0$33cd403e@Mildred> <009601c81144$a2f82980$739787d9@Hellen> <47196F76.1020303@ntlworld.com> <471C7C7F.8010507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471C7D5D.5000500@ntlworld.com> [Nigel] I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could hardly do much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions. [Jerry] Yes, I wish that too. Maybe it was not possible for some reason. It was released to NBOs. [Eric landau] The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs. Two of those directors are close personal friends. Neither had seen (or been offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the PDF from ECatsBridge. Ordinary players don't stand a chance. [Eric Landau again] Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: Individual players wishing to express opinions have a better chance of conveying those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece of paper, put it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they send them to their NBO. Grattan and the others, I'm sure, see some distinction between politely guiding players to send opinions to their NBOs and simply telling them to ---- off, but from where I sit there's no practical difference at all, and the WBF should not be surprised when players react to such "guidance" accordingly. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Opportunity given to some 116 NBOs (plus eight Zonal Organizations and the Portland Club) to comment on our drafts as they were in November could well have landed us (me) with an indigestible problem in collating them law-by-law for presentation to the DSC. As it was, the responses returned from NBOs were not so extensive that I was unable to sort them in that way and communicate them to colleagues. Offering the opportunity to bridge players generally to present their views direct would have opened up an unacceptable risk of clogging to the procedure, and in any case it was proper that players should present opinions to their NBOs for consideration and influence upon the replies NBOs would send. If players feel that their NBO is deaf to their thoughts players should use the ballot box to encourage greater attention for their correspondence; we do not determine their representation or the corporate structure of the organizations of which they are members. [nige1] In spite of the WBFLC's advertised efforts, no ordinary player was allowed to see or to comment on a draft of the laws. If the WBFLC perceives its prime duty as safeguarding the interests of directors and administrators, that may be no bad thing. If a future WBFLC expands its remit to take into account the views of ordinary players, it may adopt something like the following procedure: (1) Publish draft versions of proposed laws on the web and invite criticism. (2a) Channel comments from hoi-polloi through NBOs/ZOs for collation. *or much better -- because it is more open --* (2b) Specify that comments should be submitted to a discussion group like BLML and appoint moderators to collate them. (3b) The group moderators could set up polls, to canvas opinion on competing proposals (the status quo being the first option). (4) If there was a large response from players, then NBOs or moderators could filter it before presenting it to the WBFLC. (5) As would be made clear from the outset, the WBFLC would undertake to read (a digest of) comments and proposals; but would be free to incorporate, modify or ignore them at their complete discretion. IMO, the rank-and-file response is unlikely to be overwhelming because... (A) Many players are unhappy with Bridge laws but few players understand them. Fewer still feel qualified to make proposals. This results in widespread apathy. (B) Some are reluctant to criticise the Bridge establishment - Players in case thy risk adverse rulings. - Directors, in case they jeopardise professional prospects. (This is conjecture: but it is a fact that I get some supportive private emails; but few are prepared to pop their heads above the parapet on BLML or RGB). A consultation process would have beneficial side-effects: - education of players and directors in existing laws; and - better appreciation of the hard task undertaken by law-makers. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 22 13:02:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:02:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] No traffic? In-Reply-To: <005701c81491$0756c680$70a787d9@Hellen> References: <005701c81491$0756c680$70a787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <471C835E.7070009@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "A finished product is one that > has already seen its better days." > {Art Linkletter} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > > +=+ I have received nothing from blml since > 19 October so I am testing to see if I am in touch. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes, when I decide to shut up, everyone does. :-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Mon Oct 22 13:19:21 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:19:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] No traffic? References: <005701c81491$0756c680$70a787d9@Hellen> <471C835E.7070009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c8149d$7d92c1d0$4a344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Grattan, Uour e-mail was forwarded to me by Herman but perhaps for one of the very few time - it is your server. I am getting e-amils from BLML. Luv, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] No traffic? > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Grattan Endicott >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk >> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A finished product is one that >> has already seen its better days." >> {Art Linkletter} >> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >> >> +=+ I have received nothing from blml since >> 19 October so I am testing to see if I am in touch. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Yes, when I decide to shut up, everyone does. :-) > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 21 03:50:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:50:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710121615.l9CGFHkF010676@cfa.harvard.edu><471103A5.3070504@nhcc.net> <471142E3.4040103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <00b801c81384$e7f2d0c0$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > Hi, > >> 4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial >> games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany. > > Aren't the military bases in .uk and .de American territory? I.e. the > game will be in the US, thus ACBL land. > > (The last time I was on such a base, it looked like the US, pay in > US$ instead of DEM or NLG and the German/Dutch laws for shop opening > hours didn't apply which was great.) > > >> (L80A1c. Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their >> games.) > > Yes, I wonder what problem we are trying to solve here ;-) > > Henk > +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 13:35:39 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:35:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fairy Bridge Message-ID: <471C8B0B.6040902@ntlworld.com> IMO players would prefer universal Bridge Rules that provide a level playing field for the game and thus hamper different legislatures from conferring significant advantages on their local players. However, I readily accept that such an ideal is unlikely to be approached in the foreseeable future. In the mean time, the current set-up provides an opportunity for the WBFLC to try our alternative rules *systematically*. They could ask different legislatures: to try out different promising rule variants; to formally assess their benefits and drawbacks; and to judge whether they improve players' understanding and enjoyment of the game, in practical use. When tried and tested, such a new rule could become a candidate for inclusion in the law book. Such fairy bridge variants have already proved popular and effective online. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 22 13:45:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:45:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] No traffic? In-Reply-To: <005701c81491$0756c680$70a787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000301c814a1$0c4a1150$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > +=+ I have received nothing from blml since > 19 October so I am testing to see if I am in touch. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I counted 35 messages on October 19th alone and then nothing until your message came along today. No wonder you were worried. Regards Sven From henk at ripe.net Mon Oct 22 13:52:27 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:52:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] No traffic? In-Reply-To: <000301c814a1$0c4a1150$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c814a1$0c4a1150$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <471C8EFB.1020706@ripe.net> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott >> +=+ I have received nothing from blml since >> 19 October so I am testing to see if I am in touch. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I counted 35 messages on October 19th alone and then nothing until your > message came along today. > > No wonder you were worried. Something was stuck here, the mailing list software has been restarted and all mails should now have gone through. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 21 06:12:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Responses interspersed ~ G ~ +=+ ------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:48 AM Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > The new laws about kibitzers seem to be clearer :) > > Do the new laws settle many of the long-running controversies? > > For example... > > [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? > or does it have to be held *stationary*? > +=+ If held momentarily in that position it must be played. +=+ > > [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed > to the current trick, without claiming? > +=+ See Law 41C. Apart from that there is no prohibition of making a lead from the hand that won the last trick even while players continue to inspect the previous trick. It is not an irregularity to do so. +=+ > > [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement > to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? < +=+ No +=+ < > Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering > law-breaking? > +=+ A matter for the training of TDs. If a TD notices something he must deal with it - usually after the hand is over if he has not been called. He is urged in many training programmes not to go looking for things. The view may vary as between differing bridge cultures. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 21 04:28:10 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:28:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com><000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> <47188A74.5070601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00f801c8138a$2ad07be0$e19187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty > > Now the question must be asked in how far a footnote which was > intended as an illustration can alter the meaning of the literal words > of some other law. L16 clearly states that "calls and plays" may not > be based on UI. If the footnote uses "actions", is this a shorter form > of "calls and plays" or do they really intend to go further than that? > I think that the same arguments we used to counter the reasoning are > applicable to the interpretation of the footnote. > +=+ And, for the future, a question to be asked will be "Why did the DSC give this former footnote full status as a law?" - 2007 Law 75. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 14:15:40 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:15:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} [Nige1] [A] If a card is held by declarer, on or near the table, is it played? or does it have to be held *stationary*? [Grattan] +=+ If held momentarily in that position it must be played. +=+ [Nige1] [B] Is it OK to lead to the next trick, while cards are still exposed to the current trick, without claiming? [Grattan] +=+ See Law 41C. Apart from that there is no prohibition of making a lead from the hand that won the last trick even while players continue to inspect the previous trick. It is not an irregularity to do so. +=+ [Nige1] [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? [Grattan] +=+ No +=+ [Nige1] Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or interfering law-breaking? [Grattan] +=+ A matter for the training of TDs. If a TD notices something he must deal with it - usually after the hand is over if he has not been called. He is urged in many training programmes not to go looking for things. The view may vary as between differing bridge cultures. +=+ [nige2] Thank you Grattan for your answers. Supplementary comments... [A] Momentarily? Does that mean "held *stationary* for a moment"? An extreme example: what is the status of declarer's card, deliberately withdrawn from his hand; passed over the table, in contact with it; and returned to his hand; all in one *smooth* movement? [B] I see that L41C applies only to the opening lead. I've previously argued that such leads contravene laws about: the constitution of a trick; fifth card; disclosure; aids to memory; and so on. Anyway, IMO, such premature leads should be clearly made illegal because they add no value to the game but could be used to harass and fluster opponents. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 22 14:24:45 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:24:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000501c814a6$87d37cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > > [C] For the most part, should directors try to confine law-enforcement > > to those occasions when a player summons them to the table? > < > +=+ No +=+ > < > > Otherwise, in general, should they try to avoid witnessing or > >interfering law-breaking? > > > +=+ A matter for the training of TDs. If a TD notices something he must > deal with it - usually after the hand is over if he has not been called. > He is urged in many training programmes not to go looking for things. > The view may vary as between differing bridge cultures. +=+ My personal opinion is to keep a low profile until I am called to a table. If I should go looking for irregularities I could not expect to catch every single irregularity that might occur, consequently it is better to leave the discovery of an irregularity to the players. Exceptions are of course when I feel it necessary for whatever reasons to monitor particular players. There could be slow players, there could be misbehaving players and most important there are irregularity situations with for instance penalty cards where I remain (if possible) at the table until the situation is fully recovered from. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 02:30:47 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:30:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <016301c81379$a9b96810$f9c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > [nige1] > A practical question that interests system-mongers is whether it is > legal to change the meaning of a your call depending on whether you > condone or reject opponent's earlier illegal call. On RGB, most agreed > with David Stevenson, who deemed it legal. It seems that many top > pairs benefit from detailed agreements. > > A dissenting minority -- mainly me as usual :( -- thought it should > be illegal -- and that a way to to remove temptation would be to > withdraw the option to accept an illegal call. > > Has this issue been laid to rest in the new laws? Or does it drift on > in the desert of doubt, devolved to local legislation? > > [ton] > Why is the desert of doubt the playing field when local legislation is > asked > for? Yes, we made this 'local' legislation. > > [nige1] > Good question, Ton :) Few ordinary BLMLers appear to have sufficient > trust in their local local legislature to want them to decide such issues. > > It is law-makers, directors, and administrators who seem to hanker > after the Tower of Babel. > > The important point is that providing a *default law* on an issue like > this need not prevent each legislature from doing its own thing. > > Each such default can be regarded as *insurance* against the > possibility that a local legislature forgets to remedy that gap in the > law-book. > +=+ See Law 40B3. In almost every case the DSC has provided a default situation when the RA has an option. In this instance the arrangement is legal unless disallowed. +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 20 08:23:09 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:23:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > champion. > I have a lingering problem with this "irrational" subject. Ask any pro, and he/she will say that customers have sometimes done something so irrational on defense as to be beyond belief. I had a "social bridge" partner who, defending a notrump contract, had to discard from Kx and an Ace, dummy on the left on lead with AQ of the king suit. The x was discarded, giving declarer the last two tricks. "I couldn't throw away an ace, could I?" My fault, I should have claimed one trick earlier. No TD would force that irrational play. The 1963 Laws said that after a defender's claim declarer is given the option of having the other defender's cards faced on the table, with declarer playing them as he wishes. That was changed in 1975 to say that the TD decides on the result, giving declarer any tricks that the defenders could lose by normal (but not irrational) play. This after the claimer states "the line of defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." I see the same wording in the 2007 Laws. That's nice, in effect I get to play partner's cards (rationally). I must remember to claim more often when defending. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 03:14:25 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:14:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01ba01c81380$a57ffff0$f9c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .......... >> Isn't that going backwards? > > Maybe it is going backwards. I for one have never liked the "irrational > for > the class of player" clause because I have seen far too many "irrational" > errors made by top ranked players, particularly towards the end of an > exhausting session. > > If a player claims and the claim eventually turns out to depend on > something > like a reverse dummy, partial elimination and then a double trump squeeze > and the player said nothing to that effect with his claim I would never > let > him get away with a statement to the effect that it would be irrational > for > him not to be aware of it. > > I would rule that the reason he did not point out the key elements with > his > claim was that he was unaware of them at the time he made his claim. > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > champion. > > Regards Sven > +=+ "Isn't that going backwards?" asked Alice. "Maybe it is going backwards but we go forwards by going backwards" replied the Mad Hatter. The dormouse stirred and murmured "How do we know which way we are going?" +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 22 12:46:31 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:46:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com><50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net><4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007d01c814a8$2942e410$abc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > [Eric Landau] > The "default law" here is clearly established, and does not appear to > have changed. Such agreements are "by default" not prohibited, > although an RA may "override the default" and bar them if it wishes, > as some (including the ACBL) have done. > > [nigel] > Thank you Eric: Assuming that you're right, why don't the new laws > clearly state that it's OK for your agreements to be contingent on > infractions by opponents; and remind players to declare such > agreements on their system cards; so that ordinary players, ignorant > of such obscure interpretations, aren't kept at a disadvantage. > > I accept that among an inner circle of secretary birds, such > agreements may be standard practice; but no ordinary player of my > acquaintance has admitted to such an agreement. Ordinary players, whom > I've recently asked, opine that they're illegal. We should be disabused. > +=+ Grattan: Possibly because they will be disclosed on System Cards? Also because systems policy is a matter for regulation? The DSC was rarely inclined to put something in law if believing it belongs in regulation - another 'principle' - so reminders what to disclose on Systems Cards are matters for the regulations. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 22 12:46:31 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:46:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com><50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net><4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007d01c814a8$2942e410$abc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > [Eric Landau] > The "default law" here is clearly established, and does not appear to > have changed. Such agreements are "by default" not prohibited, > although an RA may "override the default" and bar them if it wishes, > as some (including the ACBL) have done. > > [nigel] > Thank you Eric: Assuming that you're right, why don't the new laws > clearly state that it's OK for your agreements to be contingent on > infractions by opponents; and remind players to declare such > agreements on their system cards; so that ordinary players, ignorant > of such obscure interpretations, aren't kept at a disadvantage. > > I accept that among an inner circle of secretary birds, such > agreements may be standard practice; but no ordinary player of my > acquaintance has admitted to such an agreement. Ordinary players, whom > I've recently asked, opine that they're illegal. We should be disabused. > +=+ Grattan: Possibly because they will be disclosed on System Cards? Also because systems policy is a matter for regulation? The DSC was rarely inclined to put something in law if believing it belongs in regulation - another 'principle' - so reminders what to disclose on Systems Cards are matters for the regulations. +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 14:56:03 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:56:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> > Thank you Eric: Assuming that you're right, why don't the new laws > clearly state that it's OK for your agreements to be contingent on > infractions by opponents; and remind players to declare such > agreements on their system cards; so that ordinary players, ignorant > of such obscure interpretations, aren't kept at a disadvantage. > > I accept that among an inner circle of secretary birds, such > agreements may be standard practice; but no ordinary player of my > acquaintance has admitted to such an agreement. Ordinary players, whom > I've recently asked, opine that they're illegal. We should be disabused. I think that you (severely) underestimate the number of people who have either implict or explicit agreements over infractions. Here's the most obvious case: Many pairs have an explict set of agreements to handle interference during a Blackwood sequence. (There are lots of different possible agreements including DOPI, ROPI, DEPO, etc). Let's assume that you and your partner agree that you are playing DOPI and RHO butts in with an insufficient bid... I can point to any number of other analogous situations in which a partnership has some kind of meta-agreement that applies to ANY competitive auction where the general principles are such that it would apply to an insufficient bid. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 14:56:03 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:56:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> > Thank you Eric: Assuming that you're right, why don't the new laws > clearly state that it's OK for your agreements to be contingent on > infractions by opponents; and remind players to declare such > agreements on their system cards; so that ordinary players, ignorant > of such obscure interpretations, aren't kept at a disadvantage. > > I accept that among an inner circle of secretary birds, such > agreements may be standard practice; but no ordinary player of my > acquaintance has admitted to such an agreement. Ordinary players, whom > I've recently asked, opine that they're illegal. We should be disabused. I think that you (severely) underestimate the number of people who have either implict or explicit agreements over infractions. Here's the most obvious case: Many pairs have an explict set of agreements to handle interference during a Blackwood sequence. (There are lots of different possible agreements including DOPI, ROPI, DEPO, etc). Let's assume that you and your partner agree that you are playing DOPI and RHO butts in with an insufficient bid... I can point to any number of other analogous situations in which a partnership has some kind of meta-agreement that applies to ANY competitive auction where the general principles are such that it would apply to an insufficient bid. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 15:29:20 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:29:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> [Marvin French] The 1963 Laws said that after a defender's claim declarer is given the option of having the other defender's cards faced on the table, with declarer playing them as he wishes. That was changed in 1975 to say that the TD decides on the result, giving declarer any tricks that the defenders could lose by normal (but not irrational) play. This after the claimer states "the line of defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." I see the same wording in the 2007 Laws. That's nice, in effect I get to play partner's cards (rationally). I must remember to claim more often when defending. [nigel] Nowadays a director has almost complete discretion on whether or not to allow a claim. Marvin is right: the new laws certainly do encourage claims. When you lose the place (or, as a defender, sense that partner has lost focus), you should always claim. Far better to let a director decide on rational play with sight of all four hands than to accept almost certain defeat. This is in accord with the mission statement in the 2007 laws, to increase the responsibilities of directors. If this trend continues, directors will be empowered to decide the outcome of a competition before it starts. Finally, when directors are accorded complete *droit de seigner* :), players will be relieved of the chore of bidding and play; and be able to devote themselves full-time to getting on the right side of their judges :) No wonder such rules are popular with directors :) Is there a more sensible alternative (for players I mean)? Players seem happy with on-line claim law: To make a claim you state a number of tricks and show your hand to opponent(s). A statement is recommended but not mandatory. If your opponent(s) don't concede, then they may continue playing double-dummy until convinced (the claimer continues single-dummy). Theoretical objections have been raised to this approach; but, in practice, it is a radical simplification and seems to engender few problems. It is completely fair and objective, encourages claims, and speeds up the game. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 16:01:58 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:01:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <016301c81379$a9b96810$f9c8403e@Mildred> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <016301c81379$a9b96810$f9c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <471CAD56.6020008@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] The important point is that providing a *default law* on an issue like this need not prevent each legislature from doing its own thing. Each such default can be regarded as *insurance* against the possibility that a local legislature forgets to remedy that gap in the law-book. {Grattan Endcott] +=+ See Law 40B3. In almost every case the DSC has provided a default situation when the RA has an option. In this instance the arrangement is legal unless disallowed. +=+ [Nige2] I'm afraid that L40B3 (below) provides no default. It simply devolves responsibility. IMO, To provide a default, a law should be phrased something like: "A partnership may vary its agreements following a question... ...unless an RA rules to the contrary". I assume that the WBFLC want to hold onto the general principle that whatever is not explicitly permitted is probably illegal? Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick? :( Does this law really legalise agreements that depend on whether somebody *asked* a question? [TNLB L40B3] The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 22 16:31:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:31:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471CAD56.6020008@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c814b8$4d4a44b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ............. > Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick? :( Does this law really > legalise agreements that depend on whether somebody *asked* a question? The fact that a question was asked, what the question was about and the answer to that question is only AI to the player asking and to the player answering. (Law 16) Neither of the two other players may select any action (including varying their agreements) among logical alternatives based on the question or the answer to it. So special agreements based on questions asked or answered can hardly ever be legal. Agreement based on the occurrence of an irregularity is a different kettle of fish. Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Oct 22 17:02:30 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:02:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nigel's posting 2007 laws Message-ID: <471CBB86.9020405@aol.com> Nigel's suggestion concerning future changes of the laws (new edition in 10 years or so) seems eminently sensible to me although it will probably create more work for the laws committee (unless they choose to ignore the suggestions). But I should think that transparence and input from all interested parties outweigh the displeasure at increased workload. But I may be naive. JE From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 17:06:25 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:06:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> [Richard Willey] I think that you (severely) underestimate the number of people who have either implict or explicit agreements over infractions. Here's the most obvious case: Many pairs have an explicit set of agreements to handle interference during a Blackwood sequence. (There are lots of different possible agreements including DOPI, ROPI, DEPO, etc). Let's assume that you and your partner agree that you are playing DOPI and RHO butts in with an insufficient bid... I can point to any number of other analogous situations in which a partnership has some kind of meta-agreement that applies to ANY competitive auction where the general principles are such that it would apply to an insufficient bid. [nige1] Nobody I know admits to such agreements. Until David Stevenson defended it in an RGB topic, I had considered them illegal. I'm happy to discuss Richard Willey's example. 4N=Blackwood (4H=insufficient) ?? Among possible scenarios are.. [A] Under a *no variation whatever* law, you would have to stick to your standard agreements DOPI or ROPI or whatever. I suppose, that if you wanted to save space, you could condone 4H, so starting a level lower. [B] Now suppose the law allows no explicit understanding but you are allowed you to *improvise* variants. If a double or pass over 5H would be conventional, then, with a raft of hearts, you might decide to accept 4H and double it for penalties. Otherwise refuse to accept the insufficient bid and revert to your normal agreements. [C] If as I now understand it, you can make any prior agreement, then you might agree (say) P X 4S and 4N = weak natural bids. 5C 5D 5H and 5S = normal Blackwood responses. With special new arrangements if you refuse to accept the insufficient bid (e.g. void in hearts). From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 22 17:28:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:28:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nigel's posting 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471CBB86.9020405@aol.com> References: <471CBB86.9020405@aol.com> Message-ID: <471CC1A0.8090406@ntlworld.com> [Jeff Easterson] Nigel's suggestion concerning future changes of the laws (new edition in 10 years or so) seems eminently sensible to me although it will probably create more work for the laws committee (unless they choose to ignore the suggestions). But I should think that transparence and input from all interested parties outweigh the displeasure at increased workload. But I may be naive. JE [nige1] Wow. Thank you Jeff:) A topic with my name on it :) but this sort of thing has been suggested many times before ... (1) Publish draft versions of proposed laws on the web and invite criticism. (2a) Channel comments from hoi-polloi through NBOs/ZOs for collation. *or much better -- because it is more open --* (2b) Specify that comments should be submitted to a discussion group like BLML and appoint moderators to collate them. (3b) The group moderators could set up polls, to canvas opinion on competing proposals (the status quo being the first option). (4) If there was a large response from players, then NBOs or moderators could filter it before presenting it to the WBFLC. (5) As would be made clear from the outset, the WBFLC would undertake to read (a digest of) comments and proposals; but would be free to incorporate, modify or ignore them at their complete discretion. IMO, the rank-and-file response is unlikely to be overwhelming because... (A) Many players are unhappy with Bridge laws but few players understand them. Fewer still feel qualified to make proposals. This results in widespread apathy. (B) Some are reluctant to criticise the Bridge establishment - Players in case thy risk adverse rulings. - Directors, in case they jeopardise professional prospects. (This is conjecture: but it is a fact that I get some supportive private emails; but few are prepared to pop their heads above the parapet on BLML or RGB). A consultation process would have beneficial side-effects: - education of players and directors in existing laws; and - better appreciation of the hard task undertaken by law-makers. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 18:51:34 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:51:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0710220951n24c1b5b9hf6e0e57ee60c0c89@mail.gmail.com> On 10/22/07, Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Willey] >> I think that you (severely) underestimate the number of people who >> have either implict or explicit agreements over infractions. Here's >> the most obvious case: >> >> Many pairs have an explicit set of agreements to handle interference >> during a Blackwood sequence. (There are lots of different possible >> agreements including DOPI, ROPI, DEPO, etc). Let's assume that you >> and your partner agree that you are playing DOPI and RHO butts in with >> an insufficient bid... >> >> I can point to any number of other analogous situations in which a >> partnership has some kind of meta-agreement that applies to ANY >> competitive auction where the general principles are such that it >> would apply to an insufficient bid. >> >> [nige1] > Nobody I know admits to such agreements. Until David Stevenson > defended it in an RGB topic, I had considered them illegal. Truthfully, Nigel, have you ever bothered to explictly ask anyone about this situation? Personally, I expect that the reason that this issue hasn't come up is a simple function of the fact that on a practical basis these bids never come up so people don't waste their time discussing this topic. None-the-less, the entire point in having a so-called "Meta Agreement" to have a general framework that can be applied to all sorts of stupid little situations that we can't be bothered to discuss. Here's another very basic example. I have a very nice and complete set of notes on Symmetric Relay. The notes contain a set of rules documenting how we handle competitive bidding during game forcing and game inviational relay sequences. I never bothered to explictly discuss any examples where the opponent's make an insufficient bid during one of our game forcing relays. Even so, I believe that my partner's would be able to derive a systemic meaning for different bids based on the generic rules set. For whats its worth, I posted a hypothetical question involving an insufficient bid during a DOPI sequence on a couple different bridge forums: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=21868&st=0&#entry229721 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3307 Personally, I expect that nearly everyone will assume that if you accept the insufficient bid, your "Meta Agreement" applies. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 22 20:39:55 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:39:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471CAD56.6020008@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <016301c81379$a9b96810$f9c8403e@Mildred> <471CAD56.6020008@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <6B188FC8-6E37-4FD0-9FE4-B27C9E1D4112@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Guthrie wrote: > I'm afraid that L40B3 (below) provides no default. It simply devolves > responsibility. IMO, To provide a default, a law should be phrased > something like: > > "A partnership may vary its agreements following a question... > ...unless an RA rules to the contrary". > > I assume that the WBFLC want to hold onto the general principle that > whatever is not explicitly permitted is probably illegal? > > Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick? :( Does this law really > legalise agreements that depend on whether somebody *asked* a > question? > > [TNLB L40B3] > The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership > to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a > question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. The RA "may" ("has permission to") disallow... If the RA does not exercise this option, the default is that a partnership *is* allowed to vary its understandings... I don't see how this law can be read otherwise. From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 22:49:17 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:49:17 +1300 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Guthrie wrote: > [B] I see that L41C applies only to the opening lead. I've previously > argued that such leads contravene laws about: the constitution of a > trick; fifth card; disclosure; aids to memory; and so on. Anyway, IMO, > such premature leads should be clearly made illegal because they add > no value to the game but could be used to harass and fluster opponents. > It is not the premature lead that is an infraction it is the delayed turning down of a card. The law says "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table." L65A 2007 "When..." indicates the time for the players to turn down their cards. And the time indicated is 'at the time' or 'as soon as' all four players have played not at some other time after a delay. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:43:06 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:43:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710221543v7bc1f7a2i26e7de981810e329@mail.gmail.com> On 10/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > It is not the premature lead that is an infraction it is the delayed > turning down of a card. The law says "When four cards have been > played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him > on the table." L65A 2007 > > "When..." indicates the time for the players to turn down their cards. > And the time indicated is 'at the time' or 'as soon as' all four > players have played not at some other time after a delay. > Amazing. Do you give the opponents even one second to digest the four cards if they want it, or is that too long? In your view, no one has the right to look at the previous trick if they take longer to do it than you do? They should just instantly turn it over when you want them too? What if an opponent is handicapped in some way? I like where I play better, where generally everyone at the table gets to look at the last trick and be satisfied it is time to go on before turning the cards, and after the cards are turned, the next card is led. Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 01:28:15 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:28:15 +1300 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710221543v7bc1f7a2i26e7de981810e329@mail.gmail.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710221543v7bc1f7a2i26e7de981810e329@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 10/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > It is not the premature lead that is an infraction it is the delayed > > turning down of a card. The law says "When four cards have been > > played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him > > on the table." L65A 2007 > > > > "When..." indicates the time for the players to turn down their cards. > > And the time indicated is 'at the time' or 'as soon as' all four > > players have played not at some other time after a delay. > > > > Amazing. Do you give the opponents even one second to digest the four > cards if they want it, or is that too long? In your view, no one has > the right to look at the previous trick if they take longer to do it > than you do? They should just instantly turn it over when you want > them too? What if an opponent is handicapped in some way? I like > where I play better, where generally everyone at the table gets to > look at the last trick and be satisfied it is time to go on before > turning the cards, and after the cards are turned, the next card is > led. > > Jerry Fusselman > Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate then the law should not begin "When..." The players (defenders and declarer) still have a right to inspect the previous trick provided that their side has not played to the next trick L66A 2007. There is nothing in the laws however allowing those players to attempt to delay the game by holding their card face it. It is a clear infraction of L65A requiring the card to be turned down "When..." all four players have played to the previous trick. Wayne From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 23 04:09:56 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:09:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710221543v7bc1f7a2i26e7de981810e329@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471D57F4.7000301@ntlworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate then the law should not begin "When..." The players (defenders and declarer) still have a right to inspect the previous trick provided that their side has not played to the next trick L66A 2007. There is nothing in the laws however allowing those players to attempt to delay the game by holding their card face it. It is a clear infraction of L65A requiring the card to be turned down "When..." all four players have played to the previous trick. [nigel] When last to play as declarer, a player of my acquaintance used flash a card face up onto the table but immediately turn it face down. This declarer often caught out any players unfamiliar with the ploy who reflexly turned over their card, a second or two later. Suddenly, too late, they realised that they had no idea what card declarer hand played. At the time I thought this smacked of sharp practice :( Wayne has re-educated me. Seemingly, this declarer was just a stickler for the law :) Seriously, If Wayne is right and that is the law then the law is an ass. I hope we will not have to put up with such absurdities for another ten years. From geller at nifty.com Tue Oct 23 05:29:09 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:29:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <471D57F4.7000301@ntlworld.com> References: <471D57F4.7000301@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200710230329.AA11135@geller204.nifty.com> The following sections of the new laws suggest that intentionally playing fast/turning over one's cards fast so as to discomfit the opponents is not legal. 73A 2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. -Bob Guthrie ????????: >[Wayne Burrows] >Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate >then the law should not begin "When..." > >The players (defenders and declarer) still have a right to inspect the >previous trick provided that their side has not played to the next >trick L66A 2007. There is nothing in the laws however allowing those >players to attempt to delay the game by holding their card face it. >It is a clear infraction of L65A requiring the card to be turned down >"When..." all four players have played to the previous trick. > >[nigel] >When last to play as declarer, a player of my acquaintance used flash > a card face up onto the table but immediately turn it face down. >This declarer often caught out any players unfamiliar with the ploy >who reflexly turned over their card, a second or two later. Suddenly, >too late, they realised that they had no idea what card declarer hand >played. At the time I thought this smacked of sharp practice :( Wayne >has re-educated me. Seemingly, this declarer was just a stickler for >the law :) > >Seriously, If Wayne is right and that is the law then the law is an >ass. I hope we will not have to put up with such absurdities for >another ten years. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 23 05:18:22 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:18:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org><471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com><016301c81379$a9b96810$f9c8403e@Mildred><471CAD56.6020008@ntlworld.com> <6B188FC8-6E37-4FD0-9FE4-B27C9E1D4112@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007601c81527$d374e3a0$509a87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > >> >> [TNLB L40B3] >> The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement >> by a partnership to vary its understandings during the >> auction or play following a question asked, a response >> to a question, or any irregularity. > > The RA "may" ("has permission to") disallow... > > If the RA does not exercise this option, the default is that a > partnership *is* allowed to vary its understandings... > > I don't see how this law can be read otherwise. > +=+ I would have thought Law 40A could not be clearer on the point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 23 05:49:13 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:49:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP><00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007701c81527$d4636250$509a87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: [blml] Claim law > [Marvin French] > The 1963 Laws said that after a defender's claim declarer is given the > option of having the other defender's cards faced on the table, with > declarer playing them as he wishes. That was changed in 1975 to say > that the TD decides on the result, giving declarer any tricks that the > defenders could lose by normal (but not irrational) play. This after > the claimer states "the line of defence through which the claimer > proposes to win the tricks claimed." I see the same wording in the > 2007 Laws. That's nice, in effect I get to play partner's cards > (rationally). I must remember to claim more often when defending. > +=+ Law 70D2 may kick in, of course. +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 05:54:39 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:54:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <471D57F4.7000301@ntlworld.com> References: <4716E58A.5090401@ntlworld.com> <003701c81398$b870b510$e19187d9@Hellen> <471C946C.6010902@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710221349pab6070dmfd78f51a4447e254@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710221543v7bc1f7a2i26e7de981810e329@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> <471D57F4.7000301@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710222054wa0a75aq16be1413ec4571c9@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Guthrie wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate > then the law should not begin "When..." > > The players (defenders and declarer) still have a right to inspect the > previous trick provided that their side has not played to the next > trick L66A 2007. There is nothing in the laws however allowing those > players to attempt to delay the game by holding their card face it. > It is a clear infraction of L65A requiring the card to be turned down > "When..." all four players have played to the previous trick. > > [nigel] > When last to play as declarer, a player of my acquaintance used flash > a card face up onto the table but immediately turn it face down. > This declarer often caught out any players unfamiliar with the ploy > who reflexly turned over their card, a second or two later. Suddenly, > too late, they realised that they had no idea what card declarer hand > played. At the time I thought this smacked of sharp practice :( Wayne > has re-educated me. Seemingly, this declarer was just a stickler for > the law :) The defenders are protected from missing a card by L66A 2007. > > Seriously, If Wayne is right and that is the law then the law is an > ass. I hope we will not have to put up with such absurdities for > another ten years. > Are you suggesting there is an alternative interpretation of L65A 2007? Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 07:59:30 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:59:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty In-Reply-To: <00f801c8138a$2ad07be0$e19187d9@Hellen> References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com> <000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com> <000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> <47188A74.5070601@skynet.be> <00f801c8138a$2ad07be0$e19187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710222259p742bfb31u1bb09346005fb2ff@mail.gmail.com> > > > > Now the question must be asked in how far a footnote which was > > intended as an illustration can alter the meaning of the literal words > > of some other law. L16 clearly states that "calls and plays" may not > > be based on UI. If the footnote uses "actions", is this a shorter form > > of "calls and plays" or do they really intend to go further than that? > > I think that the same arguments we used to counter the reasoning are > > applicable to the interpretation of the footnote. > > > +=+ And, for the future, a question to be asked will be "Why did the > DSC give this former footnote full status as a law?" - 2007 Law 75. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes, why? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Oct 23 09:26:03 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:26:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language Message-ID: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English language? Ciao, JE From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 23 09:34:24 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:34:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> Message-ID: <000501c81547$22fc98e0$73d75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:26 AM Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at > all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so > far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately > when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned > "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. > To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation > were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say > "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying > "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you > need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that > you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. > Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English > language? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 23 09:51:13 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:51:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> Message-ID: <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:26 AM Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at > all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so > far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately > when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned > "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. > To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation > were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say > "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying > "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you > need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that > you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. > Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English > language? Ciao, JE > To me (I am not a native English speaker) the word *when* here means that players turn their card over _after_ all four players have played to the trick but not _before_ all players have played a card to the trick. There will always be fast players, slow players, fast observers and slow observers. Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from inspecting the current trick, provided his own card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the law could have said "After all four players have played a card" instead of "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except that "after" is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. Interesting to see what native English speakers think. Cheers, Raija From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 23 09:26:36 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:26:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty References: <000001c81168$3cf32da0$b6d988e0$@com><000001c81228$052ac520$0f804f60$@com><000601c8122c$b4ad81f0$1e0885d0$@com> <47188A74.5070601@skynet.be><00f801c8138a$2ad07be0$e19187d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710222259p742bfb31u1bb09346005fb2ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006e01c81549$e8bf5bb0$209d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty >> > >> > Now the question must be asked in how far a footnote which was >> > intended as an illustration can alter the meaning of the literal words >> > of some other law. L16 clearly states that "calls and plays" may not >> > be based on UI. If the footnote uses "actions", is this a shorter form >> > of "calls and plays" or do they really intend to go further than that? >> > I think that the same arguments we used to counter the reasoning are >> > applicable to the interpretation of the footnote. >> > >> +=+ And, for the future, a question to be asked will be "Why did the >> DSC give this former footnote full status as a law?" - 2007 Law 75. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > Yes, why? > +=+ More obvious strength, perhaps? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 23 09:46:55 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:46:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Accuracy - 2007 Law 20 and Index. Message-ID: <006f01c81549$e9c5a820$209d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Just a tip! Watch for these adjustments in the 2007 laws on the website : Law 20G2 to add the words "but see Law 40B3(b)". Index: against 'Procedural Penalties - independently assessed'. the reference is 90A, not 90A2. With thanks to the correspondent who drew attention to the inaccuracies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 10:09:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:09:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c8154b$fc100d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate > then the law should not begin "When..." Quite correct. And when the laws say that a player "does" something they "establish correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized" (See the introduction). You may be intrigued by that if you compare the 2007 Laws 65 and 66 with the present version of these laws you will find no changes that are relevant for your argumentation. So what are you complaining about? The use of the word "when" in law 65 does not mean and has never meant "must immediately". Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 23 10:32:17 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:32:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <471DB191.6000606@ntlworld.com> [Raija] To me (I am not a native English speaker) the word *when* here means that players turn their card over _after_ all four players have played to the trick but not _before_ all players have played a card to the trick. There will always be fast players, slow players, fast observers and slow observers. Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from inspecting the current trick, provided his own card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the law could have said "After all four players have played a card" instead of "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except that "after" is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. Interesting to see what native English speakers think. [nige1] Raija's and Jeff's interpretation coincides with mine. To avoid the possibility of Wayne's interpretation, I also agree that "after" would be better than "when". _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1081 - Release Date: 19/10/2007 17:41 From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 10:52:08 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:52:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Accuracy - 2007 Law 20 and Index. In-Reply-To: <006f01c81549$e9c5a820$209d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000801c81551$feb35900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > +=+ Just a tip! Watch for these adjustments in the > 2007 laws on the website : > > Law 20G2 to add the words "but see Law 40B3(b)". I assume the reference should be to Law 40B2(b) ? > Index: against 'Procedural Penalties > - independently assessed'. > the reference is 90A, not 90A2. > > With thanks to the correspondent who drew attention > to the inaccuracies. Are the above changes official to be incorporated in the 2007 laws without further notice? Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 23 11:29:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:29:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Accuracy - 2007 Law 20 and Index. References: <000801c81551$feb35900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003e01c81557$6c4b6e80$e6a987d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Accuracy - 2007 Law 20 and Index. >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott >> +=+ Just a tip! Watch for these adjustments in the >> 2007 laws on the website : >> >> Law 20G2 to add the words "but see Law 40B3(b)". > > I assume the reference should be to Law 40B2(b) ? > >> Index: against 'Procedural Penalties >> - independently assessed'. >> the reference is 90A, not 90A2. >> >> With thanks to the correspondent who drew attention >> to the inaccuracies. > > Are the above changes official to be incorporated in the 2007 laws without > further notice? > +=+ Formal notice will be issued shortly. 40B2(b) is right. thank you. ~ G ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 12:42:59 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:42:59 +1300 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at > all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so > far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately > when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned > "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. > To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation > were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say > "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying > "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you > need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that > you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. > Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English > language? Ciao, JE > When has everything to do with time. "when /?w?n, w?n; unstressed ?w?n, w?n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hwen, wen; unstressed hwuhn, wuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ?adverb 1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist? 2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd? ?conjunction 3. at what time: to know when to be silent. 4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops. 5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting. 6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the bell rang. 7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here when you should be in school? ?pronoun 8. what time: Till when is the store open? 9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing. ?noun 10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act. " dictionary.com "when (hw?n, w?n) Pronunciation Key adv. At what time: When will we leave? conj. 1. At the time that: in the spring, when the snow melts. 2. As soon as: I'll call you when I get there. 3. Whenever: When the wind blows, all the doors rattle. 4. During the time at which; while: when I was young, I was sick all the time. 5. Whereas; although: She stopped short when she ought to have continued. 6. Considering that; if: How can he get good grades when he won't study? pron. What or which time: Since when has this been going on? n. The time or date: Have they decided the where and when? " American Heritage Dictionary I suggest that the construction 4. from dictionary.com and 2. from the American Heritage Dictionary most closely resemble the construction of the sentence in L65A. There is only one of the above definitions that suggests the possibility of a later time and that is 6. from the dictionary.com definition but even that is 'upon or after which' which would not preclude immediate action. To me it is a gross distortion to argue that 'when' in this context refers to anything other than the time at which all four players have played to the trick. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 12:47:40 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:47:40 +1300 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <471DB191.6000606@ntlworld.com> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <471DB191.6000606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Guthrie wrote: > [Raija] > To me (I am not a native English speaker) the word *when* here means > that players turn their card over _after_ all four players have > played to the trick but not _before_ all players have played a card to > the trick. There will always be fast players, slow players, fast > observers and slow observers. Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a > slow observer from inspecting the current trick, provided his own > card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the law could have said "After > all four players have played a card" instead of "When all four..." > but to me both have the same meaning except that "after" is clearer. > No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. > > Interesting to see what native English speakers think. > > [nige1] > Raija's and Jeff's interpretation coincides with mine. To avoid the > possibility of Wayne's interpretation, I also agree that "after" would > be better than "when". > 'After' is only better because you do not like the implications of having the word 'when'. 'When' is perfectly adequate if the intention is that "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table". There is nothing in this law or any other law that I can find that suggests that a deliberate delay is allowed. I am not talking about hastily turning down your card in order to try and hide its value or suit from the opponents but a deliberate act at the time 'when' the current trick has been completed. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 12:49:02 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:49:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <471DB191.6000606@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710230349q53c1d66ei13c8feff9a8d630f@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 23/10/2007, Guthrie wrote: > > [Raija] > > To me (I am not a native English speaker) the word *when* here means > > that players turn their card over _after_ all four players have > > played to the trick but not _before_ all players have played a card to > > the trick. There will always be fast players, slow players, fast > > observers and slow observers. Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a > > slow observer from inspecting the current trick, provided his own > > card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the law could have said "After > > all four players have played a card" instead of "When all four..." > > but to me both have the same meaning except that "after" is clearer. > > No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. > > > > Interesting to see what native English speakers think. > > > > [nige1] > > Raija's and Jeff's interpretation coincides with mine. To avoid the > > possibility of Wayne's interpretation, I also agree that "after" would > > be better than "when". > > > > 'After' is only better because you do not like the implications of > having the word 'when'. 'When' is perfectly adequate if the intention > is that "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player > turns his own card face down near him on the table". There is nothing > in this law or any other law that I can find that suggests that a > deliberate delay is allowed. > > I am not talking about hastily turning down your card in order to try > and hide its value or suit from the opponents but a deliberate act at > the time 'when' the current trick has been completed. > > Wayne > Further if 'after' was intended then I can't imagine why the drafters of the laws used 'when'. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 12:59:48 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:59:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <000001c8154b$fc100d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560710221628g3b9a933n87196b4d2196cff9@mail.gmail.com> <000001c8154b$fc100d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> On 23/10/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > .............. > > Its not my view it is what the law says. If a delay was appropriate > > then the law should not begin "When..." > > Quite correct. > > And when the laws say that a player "does" something they "establish correct > procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized" (See the > introduction). > > You may be intrigued by that if you compare the 2007 Laws 65 and 66 with the > present version of these laws you will find no changes that are relevant for > your argumentation. > > So what are you complaining about? > > The use of the word "when" in law 65 does not mean and has never meant "must > immediately". > > Regards Sven > I am not complaining about what is written. I have argued the same point previously under the old (1997) laws. It is others that are complaining as they do not like the implications of the word 'When' in law 65A. Wayne From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 23 13:07:18 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:07:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > On 23/10/2007, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at >> all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so >> far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately >> when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned >> "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. >> To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation >> were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say >> "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying >> "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you >> need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that >> you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. >> Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English >> language? Ciao, JE >> > > When has everything to do with time. > > "when /?w?n, w?n; unstressed ?w?n, w?n/ Pronunciation Key - Show > Spelled Pronunciation[hwen, wen; unstressed hwuhn, wuhn] Pronunciation > Key - Show IPA Pronunciation > ?adverb 1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are > they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist? > 2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of > condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd? > ?conjunction > 3. at what time: to know when to be silent. > 4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise > stops. > 5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting. > 6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the > bell rang. > 7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here > when you should be in school? > ?pronoun 8. what time: Till when is the store open? > 9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing. > ?noun 10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act. > " dictionary.com > > "when (hw?n, w?n) Pronunciation Key > adv. At what time: When will we leave? > > conj. > 1. At the time that: in the spring, when the snow melts. > 2. As soon as: I'll call you when I get there. > 3. Whenever: When the wind blows, all the doors rattle. > 4. During the time at which; while: when I was young, I was sick all the > time. > 5. Whereas; although: She stopped short when she ought to have continued. > 6. Considering that; if: How can he get good grades when he won't study? > > pron. What or which time: Since when has this been going on? > > n. The time or date: Have they decided the where and when? > " American Heritage Dictionary > > I suggest that the construction 4. from dictionary.com and 2. from the > American Heritage Dictionary most closely resemble the construction of > the sentence in L65A. > > There is only one of the above definitions that suggests the > possibility of a later time and that is 6. from the dictionary.com > definition but even that is 'upon or after which' which would not > preclude immediate action. > > To me it is a gross distortion to argue that 'when' in this context > refers to anything other than the time at which all four players have > played to the trick. > > Wayne I don't think anyone has argued that it _doesn't_ refer to the point in time when all four players have played to the trick. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 23 14:09:45 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:09:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000001c8156d$99fa10a0$cdee31e0$@com> [Raija] Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from inspecting the current trick, provided his own card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the law could have said "After all four players have played a card" instead of "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except that "after" is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. Interesting to see what native English speakers think. [DALB] This native English speaker thinks that in a piece of prose that prescribes what people should do, the word "when" has the force of "as soon as" ("when the fire alarm sounds, leave the building"). But this bridge player notes an alarming discrepancy: on the one hand, people here want a player to have played a card as soon as it is "momentarily stationary"; on the other, they want it left on the table for people to be able to take studio photographs of it before considering it played. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 14:08:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:08:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001301c8156d$78a61cf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............. > I am not talking about hastily turning down your card in order to try > and hide its value or suit from the opponents but a deliberate act at > the time 'when' the current trick has been completed. 'When' just denotes a particular time. For instance 'should at once ....when' (see Law 9B1(a)) requires that a particular action shall take place without delay at the time denoted by 'when'. There has (AFAIK) been no problem with Law 65A during its at least 20 years unchanged existence so I do not see any reason why there should be any problem from now on? Any player may delay turning his last played card face down (and require the other players to keep their last played cards face up) for as long as he needs to digest the information from these cards and to plan his further play on that board. If your consideration is the player who delays turning his played card face down (and thereby deliberately delays the game) for no bridge reason then maybe you should consult Law 74B3 rather than discuss Law 65A? Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 14:17:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:17:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ...................... > It is others that are complaining as they do not like the implications > of the word 'When' in law 65A. Seems to me that your message was the first on blml about 2007 Law 65A? And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A (at least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started by you (AFAIK)? Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 23 14:28:52 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:28:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> [SP] And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A (at least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started by you (AFAIK)? [DALB] That's a bit harsh. Here is a new set of laws, and it seems reasonable for members of the Bridge Laws Mailing List to discuss them. No one actually knows what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the previous trick?" actually are, and under the laws as written (whether in 1987 or 2007 or 1216) no one seems to know even what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the current trick?" actually are. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 23 14:35:05 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:35:05 EDT Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? Message-ID: In a message dated 23/10/2007 13:25:50 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: >No one actually >knows what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the previous trick?" actually >are, and under the laws as written (whether in 1987 or 2007 or 1216) no one >seems to know even what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the current >trick?" actually are. Presumably any reference to "trick" and "rights and wrongs" in 1216 might have led to the same fate as Pope Innocent III in that year. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 23 17:50:21 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:50:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayne etc.] References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com><2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> <000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:42 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > > >> On 23/10/2007, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at >>> all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so >>> far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately >>> when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned >>> "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. >>> To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation >>> were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say >>> "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying >>> "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you >>> need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that >>> you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. >>> Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English >>> language? Ciao, JE >>> >> >> When has everything to do with time. >> >> "when /?w?n, w?n; unstressed ?w?n, w?n/ Pronunciation Key - Show >> Spelled Pronunciation[hwen, wen; unstressed hwuhn, wuhn] Pronunciation >> Key - Show IPA Pronunciation >> ?adverb 1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are >> they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist? >> 2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of >> condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd? >> ?conjunction >> 3. at what time: to know when to be silent. >> 4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise >> stops. >> 5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting. >> 6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the >> bell rang. >> 7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here >> when you should be in school? >> ?pronoun 8. what time: Till when is the store open? >> 9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing. >> ?noun 10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act. >> " dictionary.com >> >> "when (hw?n, w?n) Pronunciation Key >> adv. At what time: When will we leave? >> >> conj. >> 1. At the time that: in the spring, when the snow melts. >> 2. As soon as: I'll call you when I get there. >> 3. Whenever: When the wind blows, all the doors rattle. >> 4. During the time at which; while: when I was young, I was sick all the >> time. >> 5. Whereas; although: She stopped short when she ought to have continued. >> 6. Considering that; if: How can he get good grades when he won't study? >> >> pron. What or which time: Since when has this been going on? >> >> n. The time or date: Have they decided the where and when? >> " American Heritage Dictionary >> >> I suggest that the construction 4. from dictionary.com and 2. from the >> American Heritage Dictionary most closely resemble the construction of >> the sentence in L65A. >> >> There is only one of the above definitions that suggests the >> possibility of a later time and that is 6. from the dictionary.com >> definition but even that is 'upon or after which' which would not >> preclude immediate action. >> >> To me it is a gross distortion to argue that 'when' in this context >> refers to anything other than the time at which all four players have >> played to the trick. >> >> Wayne > > I don't think anyone has argued that it _doesn't_ refer to the point in > time > when all four players have played to the trick. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 23 18:26:58 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:26:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayne etc.] In-Reply-To: <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com><2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> <000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <471E20D2.8080408@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] "Usage: Care should be taken so that 'when' and 'where' refer explicitly to time or place, and are not used loosely to substitute for 'in which' after the verb 'to be': paralysis is a condition 'in which' (not 'when' or 'where') parts of the body cannot be moved." I do not have a word count of the new laws (Anna, do you?) but I am impressed how much time we can spend upon analysing the import of 'when'. It seems we must have material enough in the 2007 laws to occupy blml for the whole of the coming decade. Another target met. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. oh, by the way, the intent of 'when' could be the third one cited in the dictionary in front of me: 'at a time at which'. That would not be a point in time but a period commencing when specified conditions are met. [nige1] Well done Grattan! Another target met :) :) :) I prefer Grattan's 3rd meaning of "when" but I hope that the law will be disambiguated. Grattan and others say that the laws permit you to lead to the next trick while cards are still faced to the current trick. I wonder how far we can go with this? If players so wish, may they play on to trick 13 with the cards from all previous tricks exposed? I may be a minority of one on this issue but I still wonder how Grattan's interpretation fails to clash with tempo, four cards to a trick, 5th card, mnemonic and other laws. Anyway, life would be simpler and the opportunities for harassment reduced if the law were amended to clearly forbid leading to the next trick before the current trick was quitted. From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 23 19:33:51 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:33:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com><000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <000001c8156d$99fa10a0$cdee31e0$@com> Message-ID: <000501c8159a$e0b5b210$73d75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > [Raija] > > Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from inspecting the > current trick, provided his own card was not turned over yet. Perhaps the > law could have said "After all four players have played a card" instead of > "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except that > "after" > is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. > > Interesting to see what native English speakers think. > > [DALB] > > This native English speaker thinks that in a piece of prose that > prescribes > what people should do, the word "when" has the force of "as soon as" > ("when > the fire alarm sounds, leave the building"). > But this bridge player notes an alarming discrepancy: on the one hand, > people here want a player to have played a card as soon as it is > "momentarily stationary"; on the other, they want it left on the table for > people to be able to take studio photographs of it before considering it > played. > > David Burn > London, England Agree, and your example is good! As soon as possible or as soon as practical, to keep the game going. I am using the pronoun _you_ to mean any person in the next. If you are in the bathroom when the fire alarm goes off, you probably have to finish the business at hand and pull your pants up before you leave the building, so even at fire alarm "leave the building" will not always be "immediately following the alarm". At bridge table, the slow of mind people might use a couple seconds to examine what was played while normal tempo people collect the data at a glance. To use your exaple, they are still pulling up their pants while you are already at the exit door but they still ARE in the process of leaving the building as soon as possible. Cheers, Raija From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:45:31 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:45:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710231145w4115504q3dbf942769efdd94@mail.gmail.com> On 24/10/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ...................... > > It is others that are complaining as they do not like the implications > > of the word 'When' in law 65A. > > Seems to me that your message was the first on blml about 2007 Law 65A? > > And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A (at > least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started by you > (AFAIK)? > Perhaps you should re-read the discussion. Nigel was suggesting that playing a card to a new trick while other players still had their cards from the previous trick exposed was some form of harrassment. I merely pointed out that the infraction was keeping the cards face up on the table or rather not turning them down "when" all four cards had been played. If there has been no change we can only conclude that the drafting committee are happy with the word 'when' and its consequences. It seems inappropriate to me that someone who has won a trick and turned his card down at the appropriate time is criticized for leading to the next trick. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 21:00:57 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:00:57 +1300 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <001301c8156d$78a61cf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> <001301c8156d$78a61cf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710231200o2a1e8bfal360f3abdcca7c111@mail.gmail.com> On 24/10/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ............. > > I am not talking about hastily turning down your card in order to try > > and hide its value or suit from the opponents but a deliberate act at > > the time 'when' the current trick has been completed. > > 'When' just denotes a particular time. And the particular time denoted is when all four players have played to the trick. So that particular time is the appropriate time to turn down your card. > For instance 'should at once ....when' (see Law 9B1(a)) requires that a > particular action shall take place without delay at the time denoted by > 'when'. > > There has (AFAIK) been no problem with Law 65A during its at least 20 years > unchanged existence so I do not see any reason why there should be any > problem from now on? I am fairly sure that I have argued this point before. That it has been unchanged suggests that the drafting committee are happy with, in your words, the 'particular time' that a trick is required to be turned down. Roger Pewick has quoted in a parallel thread a previous version of the laws in which this law begins 'After ...'. This suggests that there has been a clear change of intention from 'after' meaning at 'some time later' to 'when' meaning 'as so as'. > Any player may delay turning his last played card face down (and require the > other players to keep their last played cards face up) for as long as he > needs to digest the information from these cards and to plan his further > play on that board. I don't think you can find a law that allows such a delay. Law 66 allows for a card that is turned down to be faced it does not require that the player that faces it 'keeps' it faced. > If your consideration is the player who delays turning his played card face > down (and thereby deliberately delays the game) for no bridge reason then > maybe you should consult Law 74B3 rather than discuss Law 65A? My consideration is just that it is wrong to criticize a player who has conformed with correct procedure and turn his card face down when all four players have played to a trick and then having won the trick leads to the next trick. It is not that players issue that other players are tardy in turning down their trick. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 21:08:54 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:08:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayne etc.] In-Reply-To: <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> <000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710231208g10b7ccd2i82de6d98c40b6c74@mail.gmail.com> On 24/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************************* > "Usage: Care should be taken so that 'when' and 'where' refer > explicitly to time or place, and are not used loosely to substitute > for 'in which' after the verb 'to be': paralysis is a condition 'in > which' (not 'when' or 'where') parts of the body cannot be moved." > I do not have a word count of the new laws (Anna, do you?) but > I am impressed how much time we can spend upon analysing the > import of 'when'. It seems we must have material enough in the 2007 > laws to occupy blml for the whole of the coming decade. Another > target met. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > p.s. oh, by the way, the intent of 'when' could be the third one > cited in the dictionary in front of me: 'at a time at which'. That > would not be a point in time but a period commencing when > specified conditions are met. I guess sometime next Friday will be ok to turn down my trick then. As Nigel points out their needs to be some urgency since otherwise it would be ok to leave my cards faced on the table and only turn them all down at the end of the hand. Wayne From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Tue Oct 23 21:57:06 2007 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:57:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP><00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000501c815ae$e37f1b30$6a00a8c0@RuiMarques> Are we going to discuss the laws or else...? Another one bites the recycle bin Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: segunda-feira, 22 de Outubro de 2007 14:29 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] Claim law [nigel] Nowadays a director has almost complete discretion on whether or not to allow a claim. When you lose the place (or, as a defender, sense that partner has lost focus), you should always claim. Far better to let a director decide on rational play with sight of all four hands than to accept almost certain defeat. This is in accord with the mission statement in the 2007 laws, to increase the responsibilities of directors. If this trend continues, directors will be empowered to decide the outcome of a competition before it starts. Finally, when directors are accorded complete *droit de seigner* :), players will be relieved of the chore of bidding and play; and be able to devote themselves full-time to getting on the right side of their judges :) No wonder such rules are popular with directors :) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 22:26:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:26:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> Message-ID: <000401c815b2$eee47250$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Burn > And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A (at > least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started by > you > (AFAIK)? > > [DALB] > > That's a bit harsh. Here is a new set of laws, and it seems reasonable for > members of the Bridge Laws Mailing List to discuss them. But the discussed law is not new at all; it has been in force with exactly the same text at least since 1987, possibly even longer. Why should there suddenly be any reason for discussing this law now? No I don't think my message was any harsh. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 22:38:06 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:38:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710231145w4115504q3dbf942769efdd94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c815b4$9e66c150$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > Perhaps you should re-read the discussion. Nigel was suggesting that > playing a card to a new trick while other players still had their > cards from the previous trick exposed was some form of harrassment. I > merely pointed out that the infraction was keeping the cards face up > on the table or rather not turning them down "when" all four cards had > been played. OK, so you "pulled" Law 65A in response to a suggestion for an entirely new law making it illegal to lead before all previous cards have been turned face down. Sorry for my failure to notice that. > If there has been no change we can only conclude that the drafting > committee are happy with the word 'when' and its consequences. > > It seems inappropriate to me that someone who has won a trick and > turned his card down at the appropriate time is criticized for leading > to the next trick. I fully agree. This has been OK for at least 20 years so why bother now? (I have had many situations with such "early" but not "premature" lead b ut never have they caused any problem at the table.) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 23 22:44:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:44:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710231200o2a1e8bfal360f3abdcca7c111@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c815b5$8fa5f0e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............. > I am fairly sure that I have argued this point before. That it has > been unchanged suggests that the drafting committee are happy with, in > your words, the 'particular time' that a trick is required to be > turned down. Roger Pewick has quoted in a parallel thread a previous > version of the laws in which this law begins 'After ...'. This > suggests that there has been a clear change of intention from 'after' > meaning at 'some time later' to 'when' meaning 'as so as'. Law 44 handles the lead and play of the cards to a trick. This law also appears unchanged since 1987 (if not even longer). Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 23 22:41:42 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:41:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP><00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com><471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> <000501c815ae$e37f1b30$6a00a8c0@RuiMarques> Message-ID: <001e01c815b7$501d6000$97c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim law > Are we going to discuss the laws or else...? > > Another one bites the recycle bin > > Rui Marques > +=+ What do you have in mind, Rui? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 23 22:45:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:45:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayneetc.] References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com><2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com><000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361><005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710231208g10b7ccd2i82de6d98c40b6c74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001f01c815b7$50fb15d0$97c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayneetc.] > I guess sometime next Friday will be ok to turn > down my trick then. > +=+ I guess that should give the Director time enough to search out some words in Law 74 relevant to the circumstances. If not he can fall back on 81C1 and 91A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 23:02:13 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:02:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law 65A/Wayneetc.] In-Reply-To: <001f01c815b7$50fb15d0$97c8403e@Mildred> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <2a1c3a560710230342i49fa972u56d0c5088febffeb@mail.gmail.com> <000b01c81564$e08a1dc0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <005101c8158c$6ec61860$71cb403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710231208g10b7ccd2i82de6d98c40b6c74@mail.gmail.com> <001f01c815b7$50fb15d0$97c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710231402v923e4ccn249c0fca4fc2a6ca@mail.gmail.com> On 24/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ****************************************** > "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish > are one another's works." > ~ Jacques Martin Barzun. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a good place to start. [was:Re: law > 65A/Wayneetc.] > > > > > I guess sometime next Friday will be ok to turn > > down my trick then. > > > +=+ I guess that should give the Director time enough > to search out some words in Law 74 relevant to the > circumstances. If not he can fall back on 81C1 and > 91A. Exactly my point. The player who delays the game or attempts to by holding his card face up when it is another player's turn to play is the one that should be subject to L74. Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 24 01:04:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:04:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <471DB191.6000606@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560710230347h2ae63cdat8f05f2abbc32cf64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6E0456B5-6431-4041-A91F-254243772FF8@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > There is nothing > in this law or any other law that I can find that suggests that a > deliberate delay is allowed. Nor is there anything to suggest a deliberate delay is prohibited. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Oct 24 01:23:10 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:23:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wayne, when, engl. language, etc. Message-ID: <471E825E.7010208@aol.com> At the risk of making a long story tedious...let me try to summarise. ("when",law 65A) If Wayne means that players should not delay the game by deliberately not turning their played card then he is surely right. (But I don't recall "deliberate" being mentioned in the first posting that started this.) And, of course, no one has disputed that "when" is temporal. That doesn't seem to me to be the point. We are bridge players and TDs; it would seem ridiculous to interpret "when" narrowly in the sense of no delay. Would it mean immediately? after one second? three seconds? ten seconds? thirty seconds? The list can be extended infinitely. Bridge is a timed exercise. If we have 15 minutes for two hands we don't want to start the second hand after 11 minutes, nor do we want to play three hands in four minutes (team) in order not to get into time trouble. But any experienced TD has often been called to a table when one pair complains that the other is very slow and they are threatened with time trouble. And, any TD knows what to do. There are situations where a player needs a lot of time; the problem is when there is no apparent reason for this. If a player continually delays turning his card he will delay the game. This shouldn't happen and can be dealt with without such a narrow interpretation of "when". I have the feeling we are shooting fleas with an elephant gun and an endless discussion of something fairly inconsequential has ensued. That is, of course, not unusual in blml but I am afraid I have abetted it this time. I think it ought to be clear that if a player needs to consider the play, count the hand, note discards, whatever, he shall have the time to do so before turning his played card. He might need to see one of the cards of the other players and he can no longer do so after he has turned his. That seems to me to be normal procedure. But, of course, if he continually does this, or does it deliberately without any apparent reason (other than to irritate the others) the TD ought to be called and can cope with the case. If necessary/possible by remaining at the table or asking someone to monitor the table. Such delaying should not be the cause of finishing the round late or not playing all boards. The TD must, of course, decide if the delays are warranted. As the gentle reader may have noticed: none of this has much connection with the word "when" in ?65A. Ciao, JE Postscriptum: But I don't want to disparage Wayne's scholarship. (The Oxford unabridged probably has even more references.) It seems to me to be beside the point in this case. From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 24 02:23:55 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:23:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <007001c815d4$3a474b20$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:26 AM > Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language > "Turn that bloody card over or I'll fine you for wasting time, for spoiling others' enjoyment and sundry other things while I'm at it." "LIKE DO IT NOW; ASSHOLE" cheers john > >> Ahoy blmlers! May I suggest that the formulation (when...) does not at >> all implicate haste or have anything to do with time, at least not so >> far as I am familiar with English. It does not state: "Immediately >> when...". As far as I can see it only means that the card is turned >> "when" (after) all have been played. It does not stipulate a time frame. >> To use (abuse) Wayne's argument, if the intention of the formulation >> were to infer that the card should be turned quickly, it would say >> "immediately when..." or "quickly when/after...". Ergo, not modifying >> "when" would seem to me to mean that you have as much time as you >> need/like. The sense of the "when" would seem more likely to be that >> you don't turn your card before all four players have played a card. >> Anyone see any holes in this logic or interpretation of the English >> language? Ciao, JE >> > > To me (I am not a native English speaker) the word *when* here means that > players turn their card over _after_ all four players have played to the > trick but not _before_ all players have played a card to the trick. There > will always be fast players, slow players, fast observers and slow > observers. Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from > inspecting the current trick, provided his own card was not turned over > yet. > Perhaps the law could have said "After all four players have played a > card" > instead of "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except > that "after" is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either > word, IMO. > > Interesting to see what native English speakers think. > > Cheers, > Raija > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 24 03:13:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:13:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <6E0456B5-6431-4041-A91F-254243772FF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c815db$0bbf80e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > There is nothing > > in this law or any other law that I can find that suggests that a > > deliberate delay is allowed. > > Nor is there anything to suggest a deliberate delay is prohibited. What about L74B4 for a starter? Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 24 03:43:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:43:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <000001c815db$0bbf80e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c815db$0bbf80e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41EFD4E5-E56D-46F6-82ED-7FE9552AA6BF@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > What about L74B4 for a starter? Nope. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 24 03:54:31 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:54:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <200710172043.l9HKhlQJ000819@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710172043.l9HKhlQJ000819@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471EA5D7.7030307@nhcc.net> > From: Tony Musgrove > I am still worried about my original example 1C (1S) 1H. > Do I have to offer the infractor either a negative double or > 2H without penalty, or both. I think you have to offer all bids from 1NT through 2S and also pass and double but only those that "incorporate" all the information "contained" in the 1H call. It occurs to me that none of us has noticed the real problem here: how do we know what information "was contained in the IB" without mind reading? In the above example, it's pretty easy to guess, but in general, it won't be. Is the TD supposed to ask the IBer, perhaps away from the table? Or just state the legal options and later judge whether the IBer has complied? I think we are all agreed that looking at the IBer's hand during the live auction is a bad idea, but it would in principle be an option. Given the "incorporated"/"contained" rule, I'm surprised the LC limited its application to non-jump bids. It will be rare for a jump to be relevant, but it's not hard to think of examples. Maybe that was just too radical a step to be considered. Application of this new Law is going to be interesting. [P.S. My postings to BLML are likely to be highly irregular for the foreseeable future, and as here, I may sometimes reopen a topic that has faded away. If people are annoyed by that, please send private email.] From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 24 04:08:39 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:08:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <200710221716.l9MHGIeX005898@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710221716.l9MHGIeX005898@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471EA927.3030302@nhcc.net> >>>[nige1] >>Nobody I know admits to such agreements. Until David Stevenson >>defended it in an RGB topic, I had considered them illegal. It never would have occured to me that agreements over _an opponent's_ IB would be illegal. I've certainly seen the matter discussed in books, probably >30 years ago. > From: "richard willey" > I have a very nice and complete > set of notes on Symmetric Relay. The notes contain a set of rules > documenting how we handle competitive bidding during game forcing and > game inviational relay sequences. I never bothered to explictly > discuss any examples where the opponent's make an insufficient bid > during one of our game forcing relays. Even so, I believe that my > partner's would be able to derive a systemic meaning for different > bids based on the generic rules set. For an entertaining post by Sven Pran on this subject, see http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/ddeaa1bfc7c73e42 > From: "Sven Pran" > The fact that a question was asked, what the question was about and the > answer to that question is only AI to the player asking and to the player > answering. (Law 16) What is L40B3 about, then? Asking a question appears to me to be AI to both opponents, though not to partner. Likewise answers to questions. Am I missing something? From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 24 04:13:18 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:13:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <200710221734.l9MHYt1V012477@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710221734.l9MHYt1V012477@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471EAA3E.20208@nhcc.net> > From: > The point was discussed in Shanghai. The law was worded so > that if fleetingly "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table" > a card must be played. We removed any word that could suggest > a period of time. The law activates the moment a card is so held. This doesn't, alas, resolve the ambiguity. "Held" can mean "held still" or "held and not dropped." I suppose this will be a matter for RAs, at least for the next 10 years. By the way, did anyone else notice that the ACBL definition of LA is now incorporated into L16? I predict that will be quite a shock in most of the world if the definition is taken seriously. (So much for the "75% rule.") This change seems counter to the overall trend of devolving more authority to RAs. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 24 04:16:43 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:16:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <471EAB0B.4020808@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the > auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Didn't there used to be an ACBL game at the Young Chelsea club in London? Anyway, it was that sort of thing I was thinking of. Those appear to be illegal after 2008, though I doubt anyone will pay attention to that particular restriction. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 24 05:09:02 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:09:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <000501c815b4$9e66c150$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c815b4$9e66c150$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <471EB74E.4030602@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] (I have had many situations with such "early" but not "premature" lead but never have they caused any problem at the table.) [nige1] Te Italians argued that confusion about what to do about cards exposed to the current trick after such a lead cost them a Bermuda Bowl :( Wayne Burroughs quotes 65A and I agree that his interpretation of that law is reasonable. [TNLB L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. Nevertheless, below are some laws that may also be relevant to the legality of leading to the next trick before the previous trick is quitted. Obviously, BLML law-makers and tournament directors are virtually unanimous in their interpretation of these laws. I wonder, however, what an ordinary player (especially a professional lawyer) will make of these laws. Could this be another case of one law for secretary birds... Incidentally, if Grattan and Richard are serious about reducing confusion in the new laws, they should at least change the reference in L45E1 from L56 to L54D [TNLB L12A1] The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent [TNLB L16B1] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by ... unwonted speed ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. [TNLB 40C3a] Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [TNLB 44B] After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. (For the method of playing cards and arranging tricks see Laws 45 and 65 respectively.) [TNLB 45A] Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him. [TNLB 45C1] A defender?s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). [TNLB 45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies. [TNLB L50 L53 & 56] It seems clear that the 5th card is a penalty card but it is unclear to which law the 5th card is subject, because none of L50, L53 or L56 seem to be relevant to this issue. [TNLB L73A2] Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste... {TNLB L73D1] It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side... [TNLB 74A2] A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. [TNLB 74A3] Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. [TNLB L74B3] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from detaching a card before it is his turn to play. [TNLB L4C7] The following [is] an example of violation of procedure: varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 24 23:38:30 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:38:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471EA5D7.7030307@nhcc.net> References: <200710172043.l9HKhlQJ000819@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EA5D7.7030307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071024142743.0c1e9108@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:54 PM 23/10/2007, you wrote: > > From: Tony Musgrove > > I am still worried about my original example 1C (1S) 1H. > > Do I have to offer the infractor either a negative double or > > 2H without penalty, or both. Steve Willner: >I think you have to offer all bids from 1NT through 2S and also pass and >double but only those that "incorporate" all the information "contained" >in the 1H call. > >It occurs to me that none of us has noticed the real problem here: how >do we know what information "was contained in the IB" without mind >reading? In the above example, it's pretty easy to guess, but in >general, it won't be. Is the TD supposed to ask the IBer, perhaps away >from the table? Or just state the legal options and later judge whether >the IBer has complied? I think we are all agreed that looking at the >IBer's hand during the live auction is a bad idea, but it would in >principle be an option. > >Given the "incorporated"/"contained" rule, I'm surprised the LC limited >its application to non-jump bids. It will be rare for a jump to be >relevant, but it's not hard to think of examples. Maybe that was just >too radical a step to be considered. > >Application of this new Law is going to be interesting. Tony: I think I may be the only person (illegally) using TNFLB. Today I allowed a change from 4C (insufficient) to 4NT as the culprit claimed she was asking for aces, and 4NT was still "simple" Blackwood. Gasps all round since they always think I just make up the rules as I go along. Back to 1C (1S) 1H. I think I now have to take the culprit away from the table to gauge "intent", and ask about the system. Say I allow a change to negative double, and the final contract is 2H but played by the non-offender. I look up the hand record and find Deep Finesse reckons an overtrick is available if the contract is played by the non-offender. So, I now have to check the final score, and adust to making 2, if it turns out that an overtrick materialises. (I hope I do not have to analyse the line adopted by Deep Finesse since it quite often plays better than I). Of course, if they make 2 or 3 overtricks, I rule that an egregious defensive error has occurred and let them keep just 2 or 3 or their ill gotten gains? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 24 09:38:00 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:38:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EAB0B.4020808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00bc01c81613$bf2d0ed0$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the >> auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Didn't there used to be an ACBL game at the Young Chelsea club in > London? Anyway, it was that sort of thing I was thinking of. Those > appear to be illegal after 2008, though I doubt anyone will pay > attention to that particular restriction. > +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 24 09:47:07 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:47:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical Alternative [SEC=PRIVATE] References: <200710221734.l9MHYt1V012477@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EAA3E.20208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00bd01c81613$c03cd120$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > > By the way, did anyone else notice that the ACBL > definition of LA is now > incorporated into L16? I predict that will be quite > a shock in most of the world if the definition is taken > seriously. (So much for the "75% > rule.") This > change seems counter to the overall trend of > devolving more authority to RAs. > +=+ Perhaps someone could find time to look up the WBF Code of Practice. I seem to recall that I copied the wording from there. It was an early piece of drafting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 24 09:38:00 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:38:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EAB0B.4020808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00bc01c81613$bf2d0ed0$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the >> auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Didn't there used to be an ACBL game at the Young Chelsea club in > London? Anyway, it was that sort of thing I was thinking of. Those > appear to be illegal after 2008, though I doubt anyone will pay > attention to that particular restriction. > +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 24 09:47:07 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:47:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical Alternative [SEC=PRIVATE] References: <200710221734.l9MHYt1V012477@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EAA3E.20208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00bd01c81613$c03cd120$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > > By the way, did anyone else notice that the ACBL > definition of LA is now > incorporated into L16? I predict that will be quite > a shock in most of the world if the definition is taken > seriously. (So much for the "75% > rule.") This > change seems counter to the overall trend of > devolving more authority to RAs. > +=+ Perhaps someone could find time to look up the WBF Code of Practice. I seem to recall that I copied the wording from there. It was an early piece of drafting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 24 12:43:48 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:43:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471EA927.3030302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000201c8162a$c2b61710$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 24. oktober 2007 04:09 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > > >>>[nige1] > >>Nobody I know admits to such agreements. Until David Stevenson > >>defended it in an RGB topic, I had considered them illegal. > > It never would have occured to me that agreements over _an opponent's_ > IB would be illegal. I've certainly seen the matter discussed in books, > probably >30 years ago. > > > From: "richard willey" > > I have a very nice and complete > > set of notes on Symmetric Relay. The notes contain a set of rules > > documenting how we handle competitive bidding during game forcing and > > game inviational relay sequences. I never bothered to explictly > > discuss any examples where the opponent's make an insufficient bid > > during one of our game forcing relays. Even so, I believe that my > > partner's would be able to derive a systemic meaning for different > > bids based on the generic rules set. > > For an entertaining post by Sven Pran on this subject, see > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/ddeaa1bfc7c73e42 > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The fact that a question was asked, what the question was about and the > > answer to that question is only AI to the player asking and to the > player > > answering. (Law 16) > > What is L40B3 about, then? IMO the only really relevant part of that law is as related to irregularities. You are not allowed to communicate with your partner by asking, not asking or replying to questions. Although your partner will obviously notice any such activity he is prohibited from selecting any action among alternatives based on his knowledge of it. "Such action" includes varying partnership understandings. Consequently I see no way a partnership can legally vary their understandings following questions asked or replied to regardless of what a regulating authority may have decided. As all information from opponents' irregularities is authorized varying understandings following opponents' irregularity is indeed a different situation. > Asking a question appears to me to be AI to both opponents, though not > to partner. Likewise answers to questions. Am I missing something? Yes, Law 16A. Questions asked or answered are not included in the list of information types that are authorized. See also Laws 16B1(a), 20F and 73C. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 15:28:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:28:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] L70-71 footnote [WAS Countdown] References: <20071022072319.1218D2B3@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: <4C7C7548-7A1E-43FD-BB37-E2E70E590C7D@starpower.net> Begin forwarded message: > From: MAILER-DAEMON at custard.org (Mail Delivery System) > > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. > > From: Eric Landau > Date: October 19, 2007 4:45:48 PM EDT > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown > > > On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> .......... >>> Isn't that going backwards? >> >> Maybe it is going backwards. I for one have never liked the >> "irrational for >> the class of player" clause because I have seen far too many >> "irrational" >> errors made by top ranked players, particularly towards the end of an >> exhausting session. >> >> If a player claims and the claim eventually turns out to depend on >> something >> like a reverse dummy, partial elimination and then a double trump >> squeeze >> and the player said nothing to that effect with his claim I would >> never let >> him get away with a statement to the effect that it would be >> irrational for >> him not to be aware of it. >> >> I would rule that the reason he did not point out the key elements >> with his >> claim was that he was unaware of them at the time he made his claim. >> >> Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister >> champion. > > Yes; I quite agree. I wrote "going backwards" because the WBF, > having only recently issued a (rather tortured) interpretaton of > the footnote which reduced the scope of what might be considered > "normal" below what the alternative (straightforward) > interpretation called for, have now written new law which does > exactly the opposite. So "going backwards" in the sense of "going > in the opposite direction from before" rather than in the sense of > "going in the wrong direction". I think they went too far; I would > have like to see them "go backwards" a bit less distance. Indeed, > I'm pretty well convinced that they never intended to do so, but > the new law is what they wrote, intended or not. > > Let's recapitulate the discussion: > > The old footnote as written, says that there is some set of > "irrational" plays which are to be excluded from consideration as > "normal" for either beginner or expert. Sven, Grattan and I all > agree that this comports with the English definition of the word > "irrational". > > The old footnote as interpreted by the WBF says that there is some > set of "irrational for beginners" plays which are to be excluded > from consideration as "normal" for beginners, and some larger set > of "irrational for experts" plays which are to be excluded from > consideration as "normal" for experts. That twists the word > "irrational" into an ill-defined bit of bridge-law jargon > unsupported by any dictionary. Sven and I agree that the effect > thus achieved is misguided. Grattan (who may or may not agree with > us) cites it as motivation for having removed the word "irrational" > from the footnote. > > The new footnote contains no exclusion for irrational plays at all, > so we no longer care what the word means. "Irrational" plays have > become "'normal'", and thus, it would appear, must now be included > when evaluating potential lines per the footnote. > > It was a stretch to redefine "irrational" plays as varying with > one's bridge ability, but that is *very* small potatos compared to > what I predict will be a forthcoming attempt to redefine > "irrational" plays as being "neither careless nor inferior". > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 24 15:43:59 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:43:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu><471EAB0B.4020808@nhcc.net> <00bc01c81613$bf2d0ed0$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <007701c81643$ee4972f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "A finished product is one that > has already seen its better days." > {Art Linkletter} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:16 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > > >>> From: "Grattan Endicott" >>> +=+ I imagine that the tournaments in question are conducted under the >>> auspices of a Zonal Authority - Law 80A1(b) - ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Didn't there used to be an ACBL game at the Young Chelsea club in >> London? Anyway, it was that sort of thing I was thinking of. Those >> appear to be illegal after 2008, though I doubt anyone will pay >> attention to that particular restriction. >> > +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its > own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL > regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The ACBL game is nothing to do with the YC. Unit 333 rents tables from Cardinbrook Ltd. One gets the same problem with bridge holidays. Say I run a holiday in Malta with EBU members and \EBU points, do I need to ask Mario Dix's permission? hardly. The WBF had better get ready for a serious restraint on trade hearing - I'd enjoy that one. john > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 15:59:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:59:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Marvin French] > The 1963 Laws said that after a defender's claim declarer is given the > option of having the other defender's cards faced on the table, with > declarer playing them as he wishes. That was changed in 1975 to say > that the TD decides on the result, giving declarer any tricks that the > defenders could lose by normal (but not irrational) play. This after > the claimer states "the line of defence through which the claimer > proposes to win the tricks claimed." I see the same wording in the > 2007 Laws. That's nice, in effect I get to play partner's cards > (rationally). I must remember to claim more often when defending. > > [nigel] > Nowadays a director has almost complete discretion on whether or not > to allow a claim. > > Marvin is right: the new laws certainly do encourage claims. > > When you lose the place (or, as a defender, sense that partner has > lost focus), you should always claim. Far better to let a director > decide on rational play with sight of all four hands than to accept > almost certain defeat. Nonsense. The director, remember, will typically decide a variety of potential "rational plays" and assign the worst outcome of any of them. That will indeed avoid a complete disaster in the event you or your partner was about to suffer a total mind-loss and do something completely ridiculous, but otherwise you are an overwhelming favorite to do worse than you would have by taking any reasonable line even if it's far from the best one. Such a tactic is, in effect, buying insurance at a price far higher than it's worth. > This is in accord with the mission statement in the 2007 laws, to > increase the responsibilities of directors. > > If this trend continues, directors will be empowered to decide the > outcome of a competition before it starts. Finally, when directors are > accorded complete *droit de seigner* :), players will be relieved of > the chore of bidding and play; and be able to devote themselves > full-time to getting on the right side of their judges :) > > No wonder such rules are popular with directors :) > > Is there a more sensible alternative (for players I mean)? > > Players seem happy with on-line claim law: To make a claim you state a > number of tricks and show your hand to opponent(s). A statement is > recommended but not mandatory. If your opponent(s) don't concede, then > they may continue playing double-dummy until convinced (the claimer > continues single-dummy). > > Theoretical objections have been raised to this approach; but, in > practice, it is a radical simplification and seems to engender few > problems. It is completely fair and objective, encourages claims, and > speeds up the game. That probably works very well for on-line claims, if, as I would assume (I have never played on line), the system does not let declarer know which defender initially refused to concede. We know it does not work at the table, however; the "discovery claim" is one of the oldest coffee-houses known to bridge-playing mankind. Current law precludes it; we certainly don't want it back. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 16:12:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:12:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <000001c814b8$4d4a44b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c814b8$4d4a44b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <79A4D599-0BB4-4D26-A5A7-000B924C925C@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Guthrie > ............. >> Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick? :( Does this law really >> legalise agreements that depend on whether somebody *asked* a >> question? > > The fact that a question was asked, what the question was about and > the > answer to that question is only AI to the player asking and to the > player > answering. (Law 16) > > Neither of the two other players may select any action (including > varying > their agreements) among logical alternatives based on the question > or the > answer to it. This says that when my LHO calls, RHO alerts, partner inquires, and RHO explains LHO's call, I must avoid taking an action that may have been suggested over its LAs by my thus-gained knowledge of the meaning of LHO's call; it turns mandatory disclosure into UI. That cannot be what Sven meant. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 16:34:14 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:34:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Willey] > I think that you (severely) underestimate the number of people who > have either implict or explicit agreements over infractions. Here's > the most obvious case: > > Many pairs have an explicit set of agreements to handle interference > during a Blackwood sequence. (There are lots of different possible > agreements including DOPI, ROPI, DEPO, etc). Let's assume that you > and your partner agree that you are playing DOPI and RHO butts in with > an insufficient bid... > > I can point to any number of other analogous situations in which a > partnership has some kind of meta-agreement that applies to ANY > competitive auction where the general principles are such that it > would apply to an insufficient bid. > > [nige1] > Nobody I know admits to such agreements. Until David Stevenson > defended it in an RGB topic, I had considered them illegal. > > I'm happy to discuss Richard Willey's example. > 4N=Blackwood (4H=insufficient) ?? > Among possible scenarios are.. > [A] Under a *no variation whatever* law, you would have to stick to > your standard agreements DOPI or ROPI or whatever. I suppose, that if > you wanted to save space, you could condone 4H, so starting a level > lower. > [B] Now suppose the law allows no explicit understanding but you are > allowed you to *improvise* variants. If a double or pass over 5H would > be conventional, then, with a raft of hearts, you might decide to > accept 4H and double it for penalties. Otherwise refuse to accept the > insufficient bid and revert to your normal agreements. > [C] If as I now understand it, you can make any prior agreement, then > you might agree (say) > P X 4S and 4N = weak natural bids. > 5C 5D 5H and 5S = normal Blackwood responses. > With special new arrangements if you refuse to accept the insufficient > bid (e.g. void in hearts). I have no such agreements (they are prohibited in the ACBL), but, if I did, they would certainly have been developed incorporating the knowledge that an IBer attempting to correct their IB without penalty must make the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. I suspect the new L27 will make most such agreements obsolete, and sensible new ones considerably harder to come up with. For those without such agreements, I suspect that the new L27 will result in IBer's LHOs accepting more IBs than under the old law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 16:55:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:55:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nigel's posting 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <471CC1A0.8090406@ntlworld.com> References: <471CBB86.9020405@aol.com> <471CC1A0.8090406@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Jeff Easterson] > Nigel's suggestion concerning future changes of the laws (new > edition in > 10 years or so) seems eminently sensible to me although it will > probably > create more work for the laws committee (unless they choose to ignore > the suggestions). But I should think that transparence and input from > all interested parties outweigh the displeasure at increased workload. > But I may be naive. JE > > [nige1] > Wow. Thank you Jeff:) A topic with my name on it :) but this sort of > thing has been suggested many times before ... > > (1) Publish draft versions of proposed laws on the web and invite > criticism. > > (2a) Channel comments from hoi-polloi through NBOs/ZOs for collation. > > *or much better -- because it is more open --* > > (2b) Specify that comments should be submitted to a discussion group > like BLML and appoint moderators to collate them. > > (3b) The group moderators could set up polls, to canvas opinion on > competing proposals (the status quo being the first option). > > (4) If there was a large response from players, then NBOs or > moderators could filter it before presenting it to the WBFLC. > > (5) As would be made clear from the outset, the WBFLC would undertake > to read (a digest of) comments and proposals; but would be free to > incorporate, modify or ignore them at their complete discretion. That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? The WBFLC has rather disingenuously refused to accept ordinary players' input on the grounds the work involved would be prohibitive. But in reality the only work involved would be selecting from among the dozens or hundreds of volunteers who would be happy to take on the task of reviewing, collating, summarizing, etc. Nigel's 2a devolves even that task to the RAs, but would require the WBF to actually demand that the RAs fulfill their responsibility in this regard, so is probably a pipe dream. The WBF just doesn't have the power to "demand" anything of certain RAs. It all comes down to whether the WBFLC really wants ordinary players to have any visibility (much less input) into the law-making process. So far it seems quite clear that they don't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 24 17:10:56 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:10:56 EDT Subject: [blml] Claim law Message-ID: In a message dated 24/10/2007 14:59:54 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: >That probably works very well for on-line claims, if, as I would >assume (I have never played on line), the system does not let >declarer know which defender initially refused to concede. Indeed, the declarer just gets told that the claim has been rejected. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 17:15:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:15:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] law 65A/Wayne Burrows/English language In-Reply-To: <000001c8156d$99fa10a0$cdee31e0$@com> References: <471DA20B.5010103@aol.com> <000901c81549$7c33bae0$73d75047@DFYXB361> <000001c8156d$99fa10a0$cdee31e0$@com> Message-ID: <2E06FB3A-DD90-4230-BD74-ACF930638CC4@starpower.net> On Oct 23, 2007, at 8:09 AM, David Burn wrote: > [Raija] > > Nothing in the laws AFAIK prevents a slow observer from inspecting the > current trick, provided his own card was not turned over yet. > Perhaps the > law could have said "After all four players have played a card" > instead of > "When all four..." but to me both have the same meaning except that > "after" > is clearer. No time frame has been specified using either word, IMO. > > Interesting to see what native English speakers think. > > [DALB] > > This native English speaker thinks that in a piece of prose that > prescribes > what people should do, the word "when" has the force of "as soon > as" ("when > the fire alarm sounds, leave the building"). > > But this bridge player notes an alarming discrepancy: on the one hand, > people here want a player to have played a card as soon as it is > "momentarily stationary"; on the other, they want it left on the > table for > people to be able to take studio photographs of it before > considering it > played. I think David misunderstands the question, which has nothing to do with when the card is considered played. They merely want it left on the table for people to be able to take studio photographs of it before the point at which they can no longer see what other cards were played to the trick. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 17:41:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:41:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471EA5D7.7030307@nhcc.net> References: <200710172043.l9HKhlQJ000819@cfa.harvard.edu> <471EA5D7.7030307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Tony Musgrove >> I am still worried about my original example 1C (1S) 1H. >> Do I have to offer the infractor either a negative double or >> 2H without penalty, or both. > > I think you have to offer all bids from 1NT through 2S and also > pass and > double but only those that "incorporate" all the information > "contained" > in the 1H call. > > It occurs to me that none of us has noticed the real problem here: how > do we know what information "was contained in the IB" without mind > reading? In the above example, it's pretty easy to guess, but in > general, it won't be. Is the TD supposed to ask the IBer, perhaps > away > from the table? Or just state the legal options and later judge > whether > the IBer has complied? I think we are all agreed that looking at the > IBer's hand during the live auction is a bad idea, but it would in > principle be an option. > > Given the "incorporated"/"contained" rule, I'm surprised the LC > limited > its application to non-jump bids. It will be rare for a jump to be > relevant, but it's not hard to think of examples. Maybe that was just > too radical a step to be considered. > > Application of this new Law is going to be interesting. "At the lowest legal level" (L27C1) was a rather poorly chosen phrase which will need significant interpretation before we can understand how to apply it. Steve's interpretation -- that it permits only non- jump bids -- may have been intended, but that is counter-suggested by the lack of any reference to the suit of the bid. Or it could be read as the "lowest legal level... that incorporates the information", in which case jump bids are not precluded if no lower- level bid would meet the criterion. I don't think it can mean what it actually says, since, e.g., after 1C-1S-, the "lowest legal level", if taken literally, is the one-level, which would permit only 1NT to be considered (along with pass and double). And I'm those aren't the only possible interpretations, only the ones that occured to me after about 10 seconds' thought. Interesting indeed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 24 17:45:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:45:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <007701c81643$ee4972f0$0701a8c0@john> References: <200710221738.l9MHcjQ4013467@cfa.harvard.edu><471EAB0B.4020808@nhcc.net> <00bc01c81613$bf2d0ed0$6c9d87d9@Hellen> <007701c81643$ee4972f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <471F6880.30205@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > > One gets the same problem with bridge holidays. Say I run a holiday in Malta > with EBU members and \EBU points, do I need to ask Mario Dix's permission? Knowing Mario, I'd better advise you to ask the permission. It's quite certain to be granted, though. > hardly. The WBF had better get ready for a serious restraint on trade > hearing - I'd enjoy that one. > > john > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 24 17:48:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:48:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <79A4D599-0BB4-4D26-A5A7-000B924C925C@starpower.net> References: <000001c814b8$4d4a44b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <79A4D599-0BB4-4D26-A5A7-000B924C925C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <471F694C.3040909@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > This says that when my LHO calls, RHO alerts, partner inquires, and > RHO explains LHO's call, I must avoid taking an action that may have > been suggested over its LAs by my thus-gained knowledge of the > meaning of LHO's call; it turns mandatory disclosure into UI. That > cannot be what Sven meant. > > I explain this phenomenon like this: Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. Normally, that assumption is taken, but I can imagine situations where a player has shown disinterest in the meaning of the bids, then to be awoken by a question by partner, will face use of UI charges. Of course simply not asking (yet) for the meaning of the bidding is not "showing disinterest". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 24 18:34:27 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:34:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <000001c814b8$4d4a44b0$6400a8c0@WINXP><79A4D599-0BB4-4D26-A5A7-000B924C925C@starpower.net> <471F694C.3040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c8165b$bef52130$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27 > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> This says that when my LHO calls, RHO alerts, partner inquires, and >> RHO explains LHO's call, I must avoid taking an action that may have >> been suggested over its LAs by my thus-gained knowledge of the >> meaning of LHO's call; it turns mandatory disclosure into UI. That >> cannot be what Sven meant. >> >> > > I explain this phenomenon like this: > > Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your > partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can > be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. > Normally, that assumption is taken, but I can imagine situations where > a player has shown disinterest in the meaning of the bids, then to be > awoken by a question by partner, will face use of UI charges. Of > course simply not asking (yet) for the meaning of the bidding is not > "showing disinterest". Agree with this completely. I think WBF alerting works well simply because it accepts that players will ask from time to time and this doesn't immediately lead to the "It's UI; shoot it" syndrome. It's this aspect of EBU practise which I find unsavoury. john > > -- > 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 24 20:06:53 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:06:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> [Herman de Wael] Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. [Nigel] Under the new laws all such problems may disappear :) Grattan, Eric, Tim and others tell us that L30B3 (below) has a *default* meaning: It states that it *is* legal to vary agreements depending on *answers* to questions unless an RA rules otherwise. Amazingly, L40B3 also legalises the varying of agreements depending on the question *asked*. L40B3 is the most *specific* law on this issue. Hence you may agree ... "Is that artificial?" can mean that your subsequent pass suggests a penalty double, no matter what the answer :) Alternatively ... "Natural, I suppose?" followed by a pass can be equivalent to a weak take-out double :) In the past, I suspect that some enlightened players may have anticipated the new laws :) Luckily, the *default* status of such laws will be discernible only to insiders like BLMLers. Such arcane interpretations are likely to be overlooked by uninformed ordinary players. [TNLB L40B3] The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 24 20:08:42 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:08:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] New L27 References: <000201c8162a$c2b61710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00fb01c81668$eb817980$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > Questions asked or answered are not included in the list of > information types that are authorized. I have been bothered by some experts' unnecessary detailed questioning at NABCs. The aim seems to be the forced creation of UI on our part, hoping for a mistake, and in some cases merely the harrassment of an elderly couple whose male half gets incensed at the practice. By unnecessary I mean information that is very plainly shown in large text on our convention card (e.g., opening leads), the purpose of which is to communicate a partnership's agreements to opponents (not to each other, as is commonly assumed). They should consult the cc, and then ask questions only if necessary. There oughta be a law, or at least a regulation, dealing with this problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 22:50:03 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:50:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: <471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> <471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net> On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Herman de Wael] > Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your > partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can > be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. > > [Nigel] > Under the new laws all such problems may disappear :) > > Grattan, Eric, Tim and others tell us that L30B3 (below) has a > *default* meaning: It states that it *is* legal to vary agreements > depending on *answers* to questions unless an RA rules otherwise. > > Amazingly, L40B3 also legalises the varying of agreements depending on > the question *asked*. L40B3 is the most *specific* law on this issue. > Hence you may agree ... > > "Is that artificial?" can mean that your subsequent pass suggests a > penalty double, no matter what the answer :) > > Alternatively ... > > "Natural, I suppose?" followed by a pass can be equivalent to a weak > take-out double :) > > In the past, I suspect that some enlightened players may have > anticipated the new laws :) > > Luckily, the *default* status of such laws will be discernible only to > insiders like BLMLers. Such arcane interpretations are likely to be > overlooked by uninformed ordinary players. > > [TNLB L40B3] > The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership > to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a > question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. Both common sense and the context established by other laws should make it obvious that L40B3 is about varying your understandings based on your opponents' actions. You can't vary an understanding based on your *own* questions or responses, as Nigel would have it, any more than you can vary an understanding based on your own irregularities. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 23:07:00 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:07:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> On 10/24/07, Eric Landau (in the thread "[BLML] Palimpsest?") wrote: > > Both common sense and the context established by other laws should > make it obvious that L40B3 is about varying your understandings based > on your opponents' actions. You can't vary an understanding based on > your *own* questions or responses, as Nigel would have it, any more > than you can vary an understanding based on your own irregularities. > Eric, I agree with "You can't vary an understanding based on your *own* questions," but how far would you go with this? What would you say about the following case?: North chooses not to ask the meaning of West's alerted call because North wants his next call to be interpreted as natural by South. (He is afraid his desired next call would become artificial once East explains West's call.) Would you say that North's failure to ask to gain this advantage is an infraction? Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 24 23:39:41 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:39:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00db01c812e1$b09119a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <471CA5B0.9080901@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471FBB9D.5000309@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] That probably works very well for on-line claims, if, as I would assume (I have never played on line), the system does not let declarer know which defender initially refused to concede. We know it does not work at the table, however; the "discovery claim" is one of the oldest coffee-houses known to bridge-playing mankind. Current law precludes it; we certainly don't want it back. [nige1] Eric is right that, on-line, you don't know which player refuses to concede. For a valid objection, it is usually the better defender. Eric's is one of the objections sometimes cited. There are other theoretical objections. No law is a panacea. Although on-line claim law is fairer and causes fewer practical problems that face-to-face law. As Eric implies, under current face-to-face law also, discovery-claims can work against naive opponents ignorant of the ploy and ignorant of the law. I agree that the law book: should include Eric's warning about such claims; suggest that a director be called on suspicion of such a ploy; and mandate harsh penalties for those whom the director deems guilty. Even beginners will be alert to the danger; and anybody caught trying one on, will not repeat the offence. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 00:20:44 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:20:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com> <471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <471FC53C.2040804@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] Both common sense and the context established by other laws should make it obvious that L40B3 is about varying your understandings based on your opponents' actions. You can't vary an understanding based on your *own* questions or responses, as Nigel would have it, any more than you can vary an understanding based on your own irregularities. [nige1] A simple way to reduce confusion would be to make the default (whatever it really is) overt and clear rather than obscure and enigmatic. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 25 00:53:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <471F694C.3040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c81690$bf75f6e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > This says that when my LHO calls, RHO alerts, partner inquires, and > > RHO explains LHO's call, I must avoid taking an action that may have > > been suggested over its LAs by my thus-gained knowledge of the > > meaning of LHO's call; it turns mandatory disclosure into UI. That > > cannot be what Sven meant. > > I explain this phenomenon like this: > > Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your > partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can > be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. > Normally, that assumption is taken, but I can imagine situations where > a player has shown disinterest in the meaning of the bids, then to be > awoken by a question by partner, will face use of UI charges. Of > course simply not asking (yet) for the meaning of the bidding is not > "showing disinterest". I think Herman made my point very well - thanks Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 01:16:07 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:16:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Leading question Message-ID: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] I have had many situations with such "early" but not "premature" lead but never have they caused any problem at the table. [nige1] Italians argued that confusion about what to do about cards exposed to the current trick after such a lead cost them a Bermuda Bowl :( Below are new laws (I suspect that only the numbers have changed) that may be relevant to the legality of leading to the next trick before the previous trick is quitted. Obviously, BLML law-makers and tournament directors are virtually unanimous in their interpretation of these laws: they believe that "early" leads are OK. I wonder, however, what an ordinary player (especially a professional lawyer) will make of these laws. Could this be another case of one law for Professors Emeritus of Bio-Sophistry and another for the rest of us. Incidentally, if Grattan and Richard are serious about reducing confusion in the new laws, they should at least change the reference in L45E1 from L56 to L54D [TNLB L12A1] The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. :( *if* an "early" lead is a violation, it seems that remedies are possible :) [TNLB L16B1] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by ... unwonted speed ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. :( one of several laws about varying *tempo* :) [TNLB 40C3a] Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. :( Enabling partner to study cards from *two* tricks reduces memory strain :) [TNLB 44B] After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. (For the method of playing cards and arranging tricks see Laws 45 and 65 respectively.) :( the lead to the *next* trick has no legal place in the *current* trick :) [TNLB 45C1] A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). :( *arguably, he *has* made a legal play this trick* :) [TNLB 45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies. :( It is clear that the *5th card* is a *penalty card*; admittedly, it is unclear to which law the 5th card is subject, because none of L50, L53 or L56 seem to be relevant to this issue :) [TNLB L73A2] Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste... :( more tempo :) {TNLB L73D1] It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side... :( manifestly it *can* and does work to your benefit here :) [TNLB 74A2] A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. :( this seems to warn us against any form of harassment that may cause confuse opponent :) [TNLB 74A3] Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. [TNLB L74B3] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from detaching a card before it is his turn to play. [TNLB L74C7] The following [is] an example of violation of procedure: varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. :( if harassment is *deliberate* then there is no doubt that it is an infraction. Arguably harassment from an early lead is *inevitable* :) No matter whether "early" leads caused problems in the past, or what these laws really mean, I believe that, in future, the law should clearly state that it is illegal to lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 01:51:54 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Leading question In-Reply-To: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> References: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <471FDA9A.7060809@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] I have had many situations with such "early" but not "premature" leads but never have they caused any problem at the table. [nige1] Italians argued that confusion about what to do about cards exposed to the current trick after such a lead cost them a Bermuda Bowl :( Below are the new laws (I suspect that only the numbers have changed) that may be relevant to the legality of leading to the next trick before the previous trick is quitted. Obviously, BLML law-makers and tournament directors are virtually unanimous in their interpretation of these laws: they believe that "early" leads are OK. I wonder, however, what an ordinary player (especially a professional lawyer) will make of these laws? :) Could this be another case of one law for Professors Emeritus of Bio-Sophistry and another for the rest of us? :) Incidentally, if Grattan and Richard are serious about reducing confusion in the new laws, they should at least change the reference in L45E1 from L56 to L54D :( [TNLB L12A1] The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. :( *if* an "early" lead is a violation, then it seems that the law may provide remedies :) [TNLB L16B1] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by ... unwonted speed ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. :( one of several laws about varying *tempo* :) [TNLB 40C3a] Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. :( Enabling partner to study cards from *two* tricks reduces memory strain :) [TNLB 44B] After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. (For the method of playing cards and arranging tricks see Laws 45 and 65 respectively.) :( the lead to the *next* trick seems to have no legal place in the *current* trick :) [TNLB 45C1] A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). :( arguably, he *has* made a legal play this trick :) [TNLB 45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies. :( It is clear that the *5th card* is a *penalty card*; admittedly, it is unclear to which law the 5th card is subject, because none of L50, L53 or L56 seem to be relevant to this issue :) [TNLB L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. :( Wayne Burrows' law (Sorry I mispelt your name in another email). I agree with Wayne that you may interpret *when* to mean *as soon as* and that is a drawback to my argument. [TNLB L73A2] Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste... :( more tempo :) {TNLB L73D1] It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side... :( manifestly it *can* and does work to a defender's benefit here :) [TNLB 74A2] A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. :( this seems to warn us against any form of harassment that may confuse an opponent :) [TNLB 74A3] Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. [TNLB L74B3] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from detaching a card before it is his turn to play. [TNLB L74C7] The following [is] an example of violation of procedure: varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. :( if harassment is *deliberate* then there is no doubt that it is an infraction. Arguably harassment from an early lead is *inevitable* :) No matter whether "early" leads caused problems in the past, or what these laws really mean, I believe that, in future, the law should clearly state that it is illegal to lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 07:24:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:24:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> References: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> Message-ID: <47202896.4030105@ntlworld.com> [David Burn] This native English speaker thinks that in a piece of prose that prescribes what people should do, the word "when" has the force of "as soon as" ("when the fire alarm sounds, leave the building"). But this bridge player notes an alarming discrepancy: on the one hand, people here want a player to have played a card as soon as it is "momentarily stationary"; on the other, they want it left on the table for people to be able to take studio photographs of it before considering it played. [Nige1] Arguably, Wayne is right that "when" means "immediately"; but that interpretation is contentious. It is clear, however, that the tempo laws would frustrate the man preparing his wet plate and magnesium powder. [Wayne Burrows] I am not complaining about what is written. I have argued the same point previously under the old (1997) laws. It is others that are complaining as they do not like the implications of the word 'When' in law 65A. [Sven Pran] And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started by you (AFAIK)? [David Burn] That's a bit harsh. Here is a new set of laws, and it seems reasonable for members of the Bridge Laws Mailing List to discuss them. No one actually knows what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the previous trick?" actually are, and under the laws as written (whether in 1987 or 2007 or 1216) no one seems to know even what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the current trick?" actually are. Doesn't 66A say when it is legal to inspect the current trick? Although, sad to say, it does not pronounce on whether an "early" lead is legal. [66A] So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. [Paul Lamford] Presumably any reference to "trick" and "rights and wrongs" in 1216 might have led to the same fate as Pope Innocent III in that year. [nige1] Hasn't Gesta alluded to Innocent's "Codex Iuris Sacris Duplicatis Mysteriis" or somesuch? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Oct 25 08:14:27 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:14:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47203443.8070903@meteo.fr> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On 10/24/07, Eric Landau (in the thread "[BLML] Palimpsest?") wrote: >> Both common sense and the context established by other laws should >> make it obvious that L40B3 is about varying your understandings based >> on your opponents' actions. You can't vary an understanding based on >> your *own* questions or responses, as Nigel would have it, any more >> than you can vary an understanding based on your own irregularities. >> > > Eric, I agree with "You can't vary an understanding based on your > *own* questions," but how far would you go with this? What would you > say about the following case?: > > North chooses not to ask the meaning of West's alerted call because > North wants his next call to be interpreted as natural by South. (He > is afraid his desired next call would become artificial once East > explains West's call.) Would you say that North's failure to ask to > gain this advantage is an infraction? this situation did happen more than once: N artificial 1C opening shows 4S. E may double without asking when he intends a take-out of clubs or double after asking when he intends a take-out of spades. it's an unethical behaviour and hopefully it should be unlawful. fortunately it can't happen with screens. jpr > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 24 22:40:57 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:40:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Logical alternative. Message-ID: <001201c8167e$55fca450$3dd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com><471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> >> Grattan, Eric, Tim and others tell us that L30B3 (below) has a >> *default* meaning: It states that it *is* legal to vary agreements >> depending on *answers* to questions unless an RA rules otherwise. >> >> Amazingly, L40B3 also legalises the varying of agreements depending on >> the question *asked*. L40B3 is the most *specific* law on this issue. >> Hence you may agree ... >> +=+We seem to be getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Law 40B3 makes no statement about the legality or otherwise of any agreement. Law 40A deals with that subject and in Law 40B3 we are considering potential contingency agreements which, if disclosed and legal under 40A, the RA may or may not not wish to allow. Law 40B3 gives a power of prohibition to the Regulating Authority in cases of this kind and should be regarded, I think, as one specific aspect of the power to regulate special partnership understandings. (I have known of past discussion of the possibilities of such agreements but I cannot foresee what arrangements might be attempted.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 10:42:41 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:42:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? References: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> <47202896.4030105@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <004201c816e3$22886310$62d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? > [David Burn] > This native English speaker thinks that in a piece of prose that > prescribes what people should do, the word "when" has the force of "as > soon as" ("when the fire alarm sounds, leave the building"). But this > bridge player notes an alarming discrepancy: on the one hand, people > here want a player to have played a card as soon as it is "momentarily > stationary"; on the other, they want it left on the table for people > to be able to take studio photographs of it before considering it > played. > > [Nige1] > Arguably, Wayne is right that "when" means "immediately"; but that > interpretation is contentious. It is clear, however, that the tempo > laws would frustrate the man preparing his wet plate and magnesium powder. > > [Wayne Burrows] > I am not complaining about what is written. I have argued the same > point previously under the old (1997) laws. It is others that are > complaining as they do not like the implications of the word 'When' in > law 65A. > > > [Sven Pran] > And if you don't complain and there has been no problem with Law 65A > least) since 1987 what is then the purpose of this discussion started > by you (AFAIK)? > > [David Burn] > That's a bit harsh. Here is a new set of laws, and it seems reasonable > for members of the Bridge Laws Mailing List to discuss them. No one > actually knows what the rights and wrongs of "May I see the previous > trick?" actually are, and under the laws as written (whether in 1987 > or 2007 or 1216) no one seems to know even what the rights and wrongs > of "May I see the current trick?" actually are. > > Doesn't 66A say when it is legal to inspect the current trick? > Although, sad to say, it does not pronounce on whether an "early" lead > is legal. > > [66A] > So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer > or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on > the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. > > [Paul Lamford] > Presumably any reference to "trick" and "rights and wrongs" in 1216 > might have led to the same fate as Pope Innocent III in that year. > > [nige1] > Hasn't Gesta alluded to Innocent's "Codex Iuris Sacris Duplicatis > Mysteriis" or somesuch? > +=+ 'gesta' (it.) - deeds, feats, derring-do. +=+ From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 25 11:25:04 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:25:04 +0900 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) Message-ID: <200710250925.AA11169@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, The following is from the definitions section of the 2007 Laws: ****************************************** Artificial call . is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. ************************************************** It appears to me that everything following the final semicolon is intended to refer to "a pass" only, and that perhaps "..or if it..." ought to be changed to "...or which..." as follows (in caps): OR WHICH promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Am I missing something....? Please help me translate this into English, before we then translate it into Japanese. Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 11:58:39 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:58:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: <000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com><471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net> <000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <472068CF.8080403@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott 21-10-2007 1:30] +=+ See Law 40B3. In almost every case the DSC has provided a default situation when the RA has an option. In this instance the arrangement is legal unless disallowed. +=+ [TNLB L40B3] The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. [Ed Reppert] The RA "may" ("has permission to") disallow... If the RA does not exercise this option, the default is that a partnership *is* allowed to vary its understandings... I don't see how this law can be read otherwise. [Grattan 23-10-2007 4:18] +=+ I would have thought Law 40A could not be clearer on the point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Grattan 25-10-2007 8:52] +=+ We seem to be getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Law 40B3 makes no statement about the legality or otherwise of any agreement. Law 40A deals with that subject and in Law 40B3 we are considering potential contingency agreements which, if disclosed and legal under 40A, the RA may or may not not wish to allow. Law 40B3 gives a power of prohibition to the Regulating Authority in cases of this kind and should be regarded, I think, as one specific aspect of the power to regulate special partnership understandings. (I have known of past discussion of the possibilities of such agreements but I cannot foresee what arrangements might be attempted.) [nige1] :( Yes I'm confused :) Do laws like L40B do specify defaults? :( Or is it the new L40A (not L40B) that legalises (some?) agreements that depend on questions, answers, and irregularities? If the latter, then what is legal is not clear or explicit:( To clarify what we are talking about, an example of a set of agreements, to take advantage of an insufficient bid is (A) Accept the insufficient bid and use the extra space, perhaps for agreed new calls *or* (B) Reject it but, in that case, agree another structure, perhaps similar calls with additional meanings e.g. they promise a void in opponent's suit. Thus opponents illegal call acts like a transfer, greatly increasing the number of available calls to which you can ascribe meanings. Some BLMLers a RGBers claim that such agreements are legal and in current use. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 25 12:11:14 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <200710250925.AA11169@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200710250925.AA11169@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c816ef$608fa2c0$21aee840$@com> [RG] The following is from the definitions section of the 2007 Laws: ****************************************** Artificial call . is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. ************************************************** It appears to me that everything following the final semicolon is intended to refer to "a pass" only, and that perhaps "..or if it..." ought to be changed to "...or which..." as follows (in caps): OR WHICH promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. [DALB] You could leave out "which", which should not be in the law in any case; the use of "which" instead of "that" in "or a pass which promises..." is a schoolboy error anyway. But the whole thing needs a complete rewrite; the draftsmen have tried to conflate too many ideas and designed a camel instead of a horse. Artificial call: a bid that conveys, explicitly and not by inference only, information other than willingness to play in the denomination named; or a pass, double or redouble that conveys, explicitly and not by inference only, information other than willingness to play in the denomination last named; or a pass, before any player has bid, that by agreement shows more than a specified amount of strength. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 25 12:09:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:09:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <200710250925.AA11169@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000d01c816ef$1dcf7870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > The following is from the definitions section of the 2007 Laws: > ****************************************** > Artificial call . is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys > information (not being information taken for granted by players > generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or > last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of > strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named. > ************************************************** > > It appears to me that everything following the final semicolon is intended > to refer to "a pass" only, and that perhaps "..or if it..." ought to be > changed to "...or which..." as follows (in caps): > > OR WHICH promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named. > > Am I missing something....? Please help me translate this into English, > before we then translate it into Japanese. Thanks. Broken down into separate elements: (Be aware that the clause "other than" below includes "in addition to") A bid is artificial if it conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination named. A Pass, double or redouble is artificial if it conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination last named. A Pass is artificial if it promises more than a specified amount of strength. A Pass is artificial if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 12:10:43 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:10:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) References: <200710250925.AA11169@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00c401c816ef$51398ca0$62d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) > Dear BLMLers, > > The following is from the definitions section of the 2007 Laws: > ****************************************** > Artificial call . is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys > information (not being information taken for granted by players > generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or > last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of > strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named. > ************************************************** > > It appears to me that everything following the final semicolon is intended > to refer to "a pass" only, and that perhaps "..or if it..." ought to be > changed to "...or which..." as follows (in caps): > > OR WHICH promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named. > > Am I missing something....? Please help me translate this into English, > before > we then translate it into Japanese. Thanks. > > -Bob > +=+ "...... or (a pass) if it promises or denies.... etc" It is more Kaplanese than Grattanian - see 1997 Law 30C. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 12:56:22 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:56:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Leading question References: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001f01c816f7$0bb2cea0$22cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: [blml] Leading question > > Incidentally, if Grattan and Richard are serious about reducing > confusion in the new laws, they should at least change the reference > in L45E1 from L56 to L54D > +=+ It was only ever the drafting subcommittee as a body that could change such an item. Richard was a worker bee and not a member of the subcommittee. At this stage the only possibilities are to correct where the published word is not in keeping with the decisions taken in Shanghai. And only the chairman can authorize that; he has given authorization in respect of Law 40B2(c) and Law 20G2 - it may take a day or two to get the latter amendment in place - and a couple of references that were specifically wrong. This one is accurate if 'slow'. With so many people having downloaded and worked on the 2007 laws one believes the ripples have now been smoothed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 12:56:22 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:56:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Leading question References: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001f01c816f7$0bb2cea0$22cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: [blml] Leading question > > Incidentally, if Grattan and Richard are serious about reducing > confusion in the new laws, they should at least change the reference > in L45E1 from L56 to L54D > +=+ It was only ever the drafting subcommittee as a body that could change such an item. Richard was a worker bee and not a member of the subcommittee. At this stage the only possibilities are to correct where the published word is not in keeping with the decisions taken in Shanghai. And only the chairman can authorize that; he has given authorization in respect of Law 40B2(c) and Law 20G2 - it may take a day or two to get the latter amendment in place - and a couple of references that were specifically wrong. This one is accurate if 'slow'. With so many people having downloaded and worked on the 2007 laws one believes the ripples have now been smoothed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 13:04:39 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:04:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] With forked tongue Message-ID: <002001c816f7$0cad0d20$22cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com><471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net><000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> <472068CF.8080403@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000801c81707$85314df0$ddcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Palimpsest? > << ............... \x/ ................... > [nige1] > > :( Yes I'm confused :) > > Do laws like L40B do specify defaults? :( > > Or is it the new L40A (not L40B) that legalises (some?) agreements > that depend on questions, answers, and irregularities? > > If the latter, then what is legal is not clear or explicit:( > > To clarify what we are talking about, an example of a set of > agreements, to take advantage of an insufficient bid is > > (A) Accept the insufficient bid and use the extra space, perhaps for > agreed new calls *or* > > (B) Reject it but, in that case, agree another structure, perhaps > similar calls with additional meanings e.g. they promise a void in > opponent's suit. > > Thus opponents illegal call acts like a transfer, greatly increasing > the number of available calls to which you can ascribe meanings. > > Some BLMLers a RGBers claim that such agreements are legal > and in current use. > +=+ We must go carefully since none of us is a divine with the powers to penetrate all mysteries. What I read is that a player may use information in the auction or play if "it derives from the legal calls or plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)" [16A1(a)], and that "any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO." [27A1] Then I read that "information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls plays and conditions of the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal auction etc." [40A2]. I can understand, therefore, why it may be argued that understandings contingent on the occurrence of an insufficient bid are lawful. Equally I can see why RAs might wish to restrict such understandings, certainly when the IB is partner's and accepted. (Nor does it appear that there is any fresh direction to the Law in this. The words of 1997 Law 16 say much the same thing, for example.) I have no sure answers save to acknowledge the wisdom of making provision for making provision. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 25 15:20:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:20:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <000001c816ef$608fa2c0$21aee840$@com> Message-ID: <000201c81709$e1cc0d50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn ........... > or a pass, before any player has bid, that by agreement shows more than a > specified amount of strength. IMO you should leave out the clause "before any player has bid". A pass that by agreement shows more than a specified amount of strength is artificial also after some player has bid. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 25 15:21:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:21:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 10/24/07, Eric Landau (in the thread "[BLML] Palimpsest?") wrote: >> >> Both common sense and the context established by other laws should >> make it obvious that L40B3 is about varying your understandings based >> on your opponents' actions. You can't vary an understanding based on >> your *own* questions or responses, as Nigel would have it, any more >> than you can vary an understanding based on your own irregularities. > > Eric, I agree with "You can't vary an understanding based on your > *own* questions," but how far would you go with this? What would you > say about the following case?: > > North chooses not to ask the meaning of West's alerted call because > North wants his next call to be interpreted as natural by South. (He > is afraid his desired next call would become artificial once East > explains West's call.) Would you say that North's failure to ask to > gain this advantage is an infraction? Of course. If he didn't ask *because* he *wanted* his failure to do so to affect South's interpretation of his call, he is, at minimum, "communicat[ing] through... questions... not asked" in violation of L73B1, and if his partner "reads" the message, he may well be in violation of L73B2. Admittedly, that goes to his motivation, and might not be actionable in practice. Regardless, South has potential UI from North's failure to ask, must presume that North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must continue accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 25 15:30:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:30:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? Message-ID: In a message dated 25/10/2007 06:25:04 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [Paul Lamford] Presumably any reference to "trick" and "rights and wrongs" in 1216 might have led to the same fate as Pope Innocent III in that year. [nige1] Hasn't Gesta alluded to Innocent's "Codex Iuris Sacris Duplicatis Mysteriis" or somesuch? [Paul Lamford] I wouldn't know. I have only read his "De quadripartita Innocentii negotio nuptiarum" (P. L., CCXVII, 923-968)", which I think (from my limited Latin) gives advice on organising appeals in Mixed Teams events. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 25 15:31:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:31:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <000001c81690$bf75f6e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c81690$bf75f6e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> This says that when my LHO calls, RHO alerts, partner inquires, and >>> RHO explains LHO's call, I must avoid taking an action that may have >>> been suggested over its LAs by my thus-gained knowledge of the >>> meaning of LHO's call; it turns mandatory disclosure into UI. That >>> cannot be what Sven meant. >> >> I explain this phenomenon like this: >> >> Yes, information gathered through answers to questions asked by your >> partner are UI to you, but they are nevertheless AI to you if it can >> be assumed that you would also have asked the same questions. >> Normally, that assumption is taken, but I can imagine situations >> where >> a player has shown disinterest in the meaning of the bids, then to be >> awoken by a question by partner, will face use of UI charges. Of >> course simply not asking (yet) for the meaning of the bidding is not >> "showing disinterest". > > I think Herman made my point very well - thanks Agreed; good answer, point taken. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 17:16:01 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:16:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: <000801c81707$85314df0$ddcb403e@Mildred> References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com><471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net><000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> <472068CF.8080403@ntlworld.com> <000801c81707$85314df0$ddcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4720B331.7040801@ntlworld.com> +=+ We must go carefully since none of us is a divine with the powers to penetrate all mysteries. What I read is that a player may use information in the auction or play if "it derives from the legal calls or plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)" [16A1(a)], and that "any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO." [27A1] Then I read that "information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls plays and conditions of the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal auction etc." [40A2]. I can understand, therefore, why it may be argued that understandings contingent on the occurrence of an insufficient bid are lawful. Equally I can see why RAs might wish to restrict such understandings, certainly when the IB is partner's and accepted. (Nor does it appear that there is any fresh direction to the Law in this. The words of 1997 Law 16 say much the same thing, for example.) I have no sure answers save to acknowledge the wisdom of making provision for making provision. [nige1] Thank you Grattan ... I gather that... [A] there is no *clear* law permitting agreements like my example -- that are contingent on irregularities :( [B] Although L40B3 implies *no default* law about such agreements, it does enable an RA to outlaw them :( If I've still got it wrong please tell me :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 18:00:40 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:00:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <000d01c816ef$1dcf7870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c816ef$1dcf7870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4720BDA8.2020000@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] Broken down into separate elements: (Be aware that the clause "other than" below includes "in addition to") A bid is artificial if it conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination named. A Pass, double or redouble is artificial if it conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination last named. A Pass is artificial if it promises more than a specified amount of strength. A Pass is artificial if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. [nige1] Thank you Sven it's clearer to me now. I suppose that a natural redouble may convey the additional information that you believe that your partnership has sufficient values in opponents' suits to punish opponents' likely escapes :) From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 25 18:07:02 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:07:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <000201c81709$e1cc0d50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c816ef$608fa2c0$21aee840$@com> <000201c81709$e1cc0d50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000301c81721$175d28c0$46177a40$@com> [SP] ..."or a pass, before any player has bid, that by agreement shows more than a specified amount of strength". IMO you should leave out the clause "before any player has bid". A pass that by agreement shows more than a specified amount of strength is artificial also after some player has bid. [DALB] Indeed it is, and such passes are covered by my second clause, since they convey information other than a willingness to play in the last named denomination. But unfortunately the converse is not true: a pass before any player has bid is not covered by the second clause, which is why I need a third. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 25 18:44:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:44:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Please Help: Grattanese to English translation required) In-Reply-To: <4720BDA8.2020000@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000301c81726$60f8bfd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ............. > I suppose that a natural redouble may convey the additional > information that you believe that your partnership has sufficient > values in opponents' suits to punish opponents' likely escapes :) That I would expect as a natural inference and not needed as an agreement! Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 18:55:15 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:55:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? References: <20071018071020.TNSD6311.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <471803AD.30009@ntlworld.com> <50563502-16A2-4759-B234-18A535F32888@starpower.net> <4718EA2E.9060604@ntlworld.com> <471C76EF.6060107@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0710220556s2a22c954x8aef155ebe46455d@mail.gmail.com> <471CBC71.1040407@ntlworld.com><471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> <64B300E9-20B4-4FE4-B4AE-3D163D5049DF@starpower.net><000f01c816dc$448f0920$62d4403e@Mildred> <472068CF.8080403@ntlworld.com><000801c81707$85314df0$ddcb403e@Mildred> <4720B331.7040801@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000601c8173b$7811c940$8fc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Palimpsest? > +=+ We must go carefully since none of us is a divine with the powers > to penetrate all mysteries. What I read is that a player may use > information in the auction or play if "it derives from the legal > calls or plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays > that are accepted)" [16A1(a)], and that "any insufficient bid may be > accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO." [27A1] > Then I read that "information conveyed to partner through such > understandings must arise from the calls plays and conditions of the > current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal > auction etc." [40A2]. I can understand, therefore, why it may be > argued that understandings contingent on the occurrence of an > insufficient bid are lawful. Equally I can see why RAs might wish to > restrict such understandings, certainly when the IB is partner's and > accepted. (Nor does it appear that there is any fresh direction to > the Law in this. The words of 1997 Law 16 say much the same thing, for > example.) I have no sure answers save to acknowledge the wisdom of > making provision for making provision. > > [nige1] > Thank you Grattan ... I gather that... > > [A] there is no *clear* law permitting agreements like my example -- > that are contingent on irregularities :( > > [B] Although L40B3 implies *no default* law about such agreements, it > does enable an RA to outlaw them :( > > If I've still got it wrong please tell me :) > +=+ Oh wicked, wicked boy. You would have me fall over. There is law (2007-wise) allowing partnership understandings subject to stated conditions. The kind of agreement you postulate does not appear, as far as one's eye can see, to transgress any of those conditions. If this is right, then the default is the permission generally granted to develop partnership understandings. And in case it is indeed right, L40B3 provides recourse for any RA that has no liking for such agreements (or for some such agreements). No, I am quite sure you haven't got it wrong - now anyway. ~ G ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 25 23:52:59 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Angels on the point of a needle? In-Reply-To: <004201c816e3$22886310$62d4403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560710230359i543dfcb7la7579484d4a9fbfc@mail.gmail.com> <001401c8156e$ac3a31e0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c81570$4645d040$d2d170c0$@com> <47202896.4030105@ntlworld.com> <004201c816e3$22886310$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4721103B.60300@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ 'gesta' (it.) - deeds, feats, derring-do. +=+ [Catholic Encyclopaedia] Gesta Innocentii, written by an unknown contemporary, edited with valuable critical notes by BALUZE (Paris, 1686). The Gesta were also edited by MURATORI in Rerum ltalicarum Scriptores ab anna 500 ad 1500, III (Milan, 1723-51), i, 480 sq., and reprinted in P. L., CCXIV, cviii-ccxxxviii. [nige1] The reference, however, may be to another "Gesta" :) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 11:30:43 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:30:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom N's perspective the likely strength for W's 3? ranged from merely competitive to positively invitational. The fact that a purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been inferred from W's decision to bid again. The third basic alerting rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is "natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect". The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert. Mr Endicott undertook to place the agreed minute on BLML. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presumably the subject must have been discussed on blml at some stage. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071025/d9838f9a/attachment-0001.htm From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Oct 26 09:09:59 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:09:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. Message-ID: <472192C7.6060300@aol.com> I have always been rather puzzled by the (apparently) critical (with humourous overtones) references to "grattanese". His style seems to me to be elegant, clear and with welcome elements of humour. But, to quote (I think) Nigel, I may belong to a small minority. But, aside from that, was Grattan exclusively responsible for the linguistic formulation of the new laws? I assume it was a committee effort with input from various other sources. The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and "is". And, as Grattan mentioned, why is it "grattanese" and not "grattanian"? And should it be capitalised? Who is responsible for the selection and popularisation of the terminology? Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 26 10:06:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:06:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. In-Reply-To: <472192C7.6060300@aol.com> Message-ID: <000501c817a7$25c20a30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson ............. > The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed > (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and > "is". It is a hyphen "-" in my printout, like for all the definitions. Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 26 10:41:13 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:41:13 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- I will not give the full text of the above (as it is cannot easily be formatted in non-HTML and readers can refer to it) but I was interested to see this 2005 hand appear on BLML as I and my partner Stefanie, both members of this list, were the appellants. Indeed, this decision, which was regarded by some at the L&E as wrong, led to a change some time later in the EBU Orange Book. I wrote on IBLF: "The new issue of the Orange Book, in section 5G3, changed "any bid where the partnership has an agreement over possible alternative calls which affect this one" to be non-alertable. This renders the above double (the discussion was about alerting a "negative" double - PL) when playing negative free bids, and the value-showing 3C response above as not alertable (a Lebensohl situation - PL). Even the last bid in the auction 1C-(1S)-2C-(2S)-3C (if, for example, it usually shows more values as 2NT would be a competitive 3C bid or other strong hands) would not be alerted; and we can choose more complicated examples if you think the average player would know all this. I was trawling through the 2004 and 2005 L&E minutes trying to find the reasons for the radical change but could not do so; maybe bluejak or woubit can advise when this amendment was voted on at the EBU L&E and if there is a minute about it perhaps explaining the thinking of the L&E." Nobody chose to reply to this question on the IBLF. One aspect of the decision with which I disagreed was the following: "Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here." I was asked by the panel at the time what 2NT would have been by South and I replied "natural". It would appear (from the comment and the appeal decision) that the panel did not notice that South could have bid 2H to show a good diamond raise. This is about equivalent to not realising the Spurs goal at Old Trafford two years ago was six feet over the line. And the chairman of the panel is regarded by many, including me, as one of the very best. It may be that the panel would have increased the % adjustment to N/S if it had realised that 2H would have shown a good diamond raise. Various comments have been made on this hand; indeed it is in the Appeals 2005 booklet on the EBU site. Both East and West commented on the hand in an official EBU booklet (East without mentioning he was one of the players), but North and South were not invited to contribute. BLML member Richard Hills expressed surprise at the fact that one or more of his fellow contributors were at the table. I am more concerned about the change of alerting rules, which seems to have taken place without substantial discussion (if there was it is not minuted). I think it is correct that an alert should be made for a bid whose meaning "is affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely to expect". I would argue that the degree of unexpectedness that 1NT-3H would have been pre-emptive IS enough, but I can live with the alternative interpretation. It seems very similar to the alerting of doubles when you play negative free bids, which was the subject of the IBLF thread. Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 26 10:42:54 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:42:54 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- I will not give the full text of the above (as it is cannot easily be formatted in non-HTML and readers can refer to it) but I was interested to see this 2005 hand appear on BLML as I and my partner Stefanie, both members of this list, were the appellants. Indeed, this decision, which was regarded by some at the L&E as wrong, led to a change some time later in the EBU Orange Book. I wrote on IBLF: "The new issue of the Orange Book, in section 5G3, changed "any bid where the partnership has an agreement over possible alternative calls which affect this one" to be non-alertable. This renders the above double (the discussion was about alerting a "negative" double - PL) when playing negative free bids, and the value-showing 3C response above as not alertable (a Lebensohl situation - PL). Even the last bid in the auction 1C-(1S)-2C-(2S)-3C (if, for example, it usually shows more values as 2NT would be a competitive 3C bid or other strong hands) would not be alerted; and we can choose more complicated examples if you think the average player would know all this. I was trawling through the 2004 and 2005 L&E minutes trying to find the reasons for the radical change but could not do so; maybe bluejak or woubit can advise when this amendment was voted on at the EBU L&E and if there is a minute about it perhaps explaining the thinking of the L&E." Nobody chose to reply to this question on the IBLF. One aspect of the decision with which I disagreed was the following: "Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here." I was asked by the panel at the time what 2NT would have been by South and I replied "natural". It would appear (from the comment and the appeal decision) that the panel did not notice that South could have bid 2H to show a good diamond raise. This is about equivalent to not realising the Spurs goal at Old Trafford two years ago was six feet over the line. And the chairman of the panel is regarded by many, including me, as one of the very best. It may be that the panel would have increased the % adjustment to N/S if it had realised that 2H would have shown a good diamond raise. Various comments have been made on this hand; indeed it is in the Appeals 2005 booklet on the EBU site. Both East and West commented on the hand in an official EBU booklet (East without mentioning he was one of the players), but North and South were not invited to contribute. BLML member Richard Hills expressed surprise at the fact that one or more of his fellow contributors were at the table. I am more concerned about the change of alerting rules, which seems to have taken place without substantial discussion (if there was it is not minuted). I think it is correct that an alert should be made for a bid whose meaning "is affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely to expect". I would argue that the degree of unexpectedness that 1NT-3H would have been pre-emptive IS enough, but I can live with the alternative interpretation. It seems very similar to the alerting of doubles when you play negative free bids, which was the subject of the IBLF thread. Paul Lamford From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 26 11:12:09 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:12:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. References: <472192C7.6060300@aol.com> Message-ID: <004f01c817b0$64e102d0$c79187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:09 AM Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. >I have always been rather puzzled by the (apparently) critical (with > humourous overtones) references to "grattanese". His style seems to me > to be elegant, clear and with welcome elements of humour. But, to quote > (I think) Nigel, I may belong to a small minority. < +=+ Every one of us is unique. Some more evidently so than others. This small minority takes the attention to its style as a compliment. +=+ <. > But, aside from that, was Grattan exclusively responsible for the > linguistic formulation of the new laws? I assume it was a committee > effort with input from various other sources. < +=+ There are traces of even the most shy* colleague in the text. The chairman claimed the right to be the ultimate arbiter. (* unidentified - not the characteristic most evident among us. ) +=+ < > The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed > (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and > "is". < +=+ Perhaps someone just hit a wrong key. +=+ < > And, as Grattan mentioned, why is it "grattanese" and not "grattanian"? < +=+ I have come to the conclusion these are noun and adjective respectively. +=+ < > And should it be capitalised? < +=+ Can capital be made of it? +=+ < > Who is responsible for the selection and popularisation of the > terminology? Ciao, JE > +=+ Ah! Whoever it was has introduced a new word to our language. Immortality beckons. ~ G ~ +=+ > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 26 11:46:39 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:46:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. References: <000501c817a7$25c20a30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <008c01c817b8$ea8c8c80$c79187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Grattanese, etc. >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > ............. >> The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed >> (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and >> "is". > > It is a hyphen "-" in my printout, like for all the definitions. > > Regards Sven > +=+ I would be surprised, Sven, if you did not have a more intelligent computer than most. But I wonder if it noticed the flawed 'L' in 'lawful' - see 'Infraction'. Yet, is it not an excellent omen when we are down to such trivia?! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 26 12:03:05 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:03:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: Message-ID: <008d01c817b8$eb7ae420$c79187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Paul risks a false assumption here. Following private exchanges during the preliminary drafting DWS would present his draft to a meeting of the L&E where discussion and adjustments would occur. Much of the detail is not minuted. There may be more than one such occasion. Typically he would then return with his final draft to a further meeting at which the the opus would be approved in its entirety for submission to the Board. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ................................................................................. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > > I am more concerned about the change of alerting rules, which seems to > have > taken place without substantial discussion (if there was it is not > minuted). I > think it is correct that an alert should be made for a bid whose meaning > "is > affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely to expect". > I > would argue that the degree of unexpectedness that 1NT-3H would have been > pre-emptive IS enough, but I can live with the alternative > interpretation. It > seems very similar to the alerting of doubles when you play negative free > bids, which was the subject of the IBLF thread. > > Paul Lamford > From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 26 12:44:46 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:44:46 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 26/10/2007 11:14:09 GMT Standard Time, grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: +=+ Paul risks a false assumption here. Following private exchanges during the preliminary drafting DWS would present his draft to a meeting of the L&E where discussion and adjustments would occur. Much of the detail is not minuted. There may be more than one such occasion. Typically he would then return with his final draft to a further meeting at which the the opus would be approved in its entirety for submission to the Board. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, that all makes sense; I am not privy to all the, no doubt excellent, work that went on behind the scenes drafting the Orange Book. But many, seemingly less important, changes to the Orange Book were discussed at the L&E and minuted; I can find no reference in the minutes to this topic even in a general sense. We are left not knowing why the EBU feels it is now not necessary to alert when negative inferences exist, while previously they felt that it was. Paul Lamford From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 26 13:40:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:40:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. In-Reply-To: <004f01c817b0$64e102d0$c79187d9@Hellen> References: <472192C7.6060300@aol.com> <004f01c817b0$64e102d0$c79187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4721D22C.8070607@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "A finished product is one that > has already seen its better days." > {Art Linkletter} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:09 AM > Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. > > >> I have always been rather puzzled by the (apparently) critical (with >> humourous overtones) references to "grattanese". His style seems to me >> to be elegant, clear and with welcome elements of humour. But, to quote >> (I think) Nigel, I may belong to a small minority. > < > +=+ Every one of us is unique. Some more evidently so than others. > This small minority takes the attention to its style as a compliment. +=+ > <. >> But, aside from that, was Grattan exclusively responsible for the >> linguistic formulation of the new laws? I assume it was a committee >> effort with input from various other sources. > < > +=+ There are traces of even the most shy* colleague in the > text. The chairman claimed the right to be the ultimate arbiter. > (* unidentified - not the characteristic most evident among us. ) +=+ > < >> The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed >> (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and >> "is". > < > +=+ Perhaps someone just hit a wrong key. +=+ > < >> And, as Grattan mentioned, why is it "grattanese" and not "grattanian"? > < > +=+ I have come to the conclusion these are noun and adjective > respectively. +=+ > < >> And should it be capitalised? > < > +=+ Can capital be made of it? +=+ > < >> Who is responsible for the selection and popularisation of the >> terminology? Ciao, JE >> > +=+ Ah! Whoever it was has introduced a new word to > our language. Immortality beckons. ~ G ~ +=+ > A search for the word in my archives from 2005 did not return the word. It first turned up in a post by Mike Amos on 27/11/2006: "wow and I always thought I had been told your mother tongue was was Grattanese Mike" On 5/6/2007, John Probst then used the adjective (which we now know to be a mistake, this ought to be grattanian) "the nuance of Grattanese English" and Brian Meadows was next (18/7) "please explain, in English rather than Grattanese" Richard Hills (8/8) was next, and the word has entered blml-speak. Immortality is thus bestowed on Mike Amos. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 26 14:17:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:17:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Grattanese, etc. In-Reply-To: <008c01c817b8$ea8c8c80$c79187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000701c817ca$291a6f10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > ............. > >> The only thing puzzling me about the definition being discussed > >> (Artificial call . is a bid....) is the curious "." between "call" and > >> "is". > > > > It is a hyphen "-" in my printout, like for all the definitions. > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ I would be surprised, Sven, if you did not have a more > intelligent computer than most. But I wonder if it noticed the > flawed 'L' in 'lawful' - see 'Infraction'. Yet, is it not an excellent > omen when we are down to such trivia?! That L is capital also in my printout. When I received Yvan Calame's message here on BLML (on October 12th) with the following URL: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp I went straight along and downloaded the file for my own use. (I actually selected "Complete Laws in Word Format" in case this selection should make any difference). There is nothing special with my computer's intelligence as far as I know, but it is very friendly with me. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 14:45:01 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:45:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710260545j77db9ad2y605331f6e9a5db1@mail.gmail.com> [Paul] I am not privy to all the, no doubt excellent, work that went on behind the scenes drafting the Orange Book. But many, seemingly less important, changes to the Orange Book were discussed at the L&E and minuted; I can find no reference in the minutes to this topic even in a general sense. We are left not knowing why the EBU feels it is now not necessary to alert when negative inferences exist, while previously they felt that it was. [Jerry] I too would like to hear some explanation why, for it seems wrong to me. This lack of a need to alert when negative inferences exist is also present in the ACBL, including the the Oct 2007 Bridge Bulletin. The quote is "In general, inferential calls do not require an Alert [sic]." The example there is a pass when support doubles are in effect showing at most two of partner's suit. Valuable information received, but not given to the opponents. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 26 15:23:09 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710260545j77db9ad2y605331f6e9a5db1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710260545j77db9ad2y605331f6e9a5db1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4721EA3D.6010700@ntlworld.com> [Jerry] I too would like to hear some explanation why, for it seems wrong to me. This lack of a need to alert when negative inferences exist is also present in the ACBL, including the the Oct 2007 Bridge Bulletin. The quote is "In general, inferential calls do not require an Alert [sic]." The example there is a pass when support doubles are in effect showing at most two of partner's suit. Valuable information received, but not given to the opponents. [nige1] I agree with Paul and Jerry that negative inferences are often critical and the law should facilitate rather than prevent their disclosure. For expert pairs, the most common negative inference is that when partner opens and RHO overcalls, a pass is virtually forcing. Because, he plays negative doubles, advancer's pass includes strong hands with length and strength in RHO's suit. Even if the opener has a weak opener he *must* conventionally reopen, unless he too has opponent's suit. The pass is *never* alerted but, although there is a definite logic to this method, the idea that a pass can conceal such a strong hand will come as a surprise to some ordinary players. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 26 15:54:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:54:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <52837A2C-53C7-4D0B-BBDF-4369605AA389@starpower.net> On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:30 AM, wrote: > +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this > decision known on blml:- > > Dealer E > N/S vul > > North > Swiss Pairs > > ? > ? > ? > ? > A 4 > A 5 4 > A Q 10 6 5 > Q J 7 > > West > East > > ? > ? > ? > ? > K 10 7 5 > J 10 8 7 6 3 > - > K 10 2 > ? > ? > ? > ? > Q J 9 3 > K 2 > K J 3 2 > 9 5 4 > > South > > ? > ? > ? > ? > 8 6 2 > Q 9 > 9 8 7 4 > A 8 6 3 > Bidding: > > West > > North > > East > > South > > 1NT1 > Pass > > 2?2 > Dbl > PassA3 > 3? > > 3? > 3NT > Pass > Pass > > Pass > 1 10-13 > 2 Explained simply as ?transfer? > 3 Denies 3-card support > > Result: 3NT?2 N/S ?200 > > Tournament Director?s statement of facts & ruling > > Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for > a ruling; details were submitted on Saturday afternoon. > > N/S are claiming damage on the grounds that the 3? bid should have > been alerted, as its meaning was affected by other agreements, and > that the ?transfer? explanation was insufficient. E/W play that an > immediate 3? response to 1NT is pre-emptive. N claims that, armed > with this knowledge, it is less likely that she would have bid 3NT. > > I ruled that 3? is not alertable ? it is competitive in nature, and > is scarcely affected by undisclosed agreements. The opponents > could reasonably expect that there were other such agreements, and > had the opportunity to ask for any further implications about the bid. > > 3? was a free bid, and therefore hardly likely to be made on a weak > hand. Even with a ?correct? explanation, I don?t believe that N > would have bid any differently. > > I allowed the result to stand. > > Appeals Committee?s decision > > Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3? is alertable. > > If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might > not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time. Because > N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here. > > We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information > here. If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain. > > We adjusted the score to:- > > 15% of 3??1 by W N/S +50 > plus 85% of 3NT?2 by N N/S ?200 > > L&E comment: > > It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included > in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible > argument that N was not damaged. However, the L&E has concluded on > balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the > 3? bid did not require an alert. > > From N?s perspective the likely strength for W?s 3? ranged from > merely competitive to positively invitational. The fact that a > purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been > inferred from W?s decision to bid again. The third basic alerting > rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is > ?natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your > opponents are unlikely to expect?. The degree of unexpectedness of > the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to > require an alert. > > Mr Endicott undertook to place the agreed minute on BLML. The TD got it right, and should have been upheld. I play very similar methods (10-12 1NT, 1NT-P-3H preemptive). There is virtually no negative inference on this auction from West's failure to bid 3H initially. Perhaps he was simply hoping to buy the contract at the 2-level. Perhaps he was prepared to defend 2S or 3C but not 3D. 3H presumably expressed a desire to play in 3H. If the negative inferences on this auction require an alert, there would be very few bids that don't. P.S. This reply demonstrates why we should avoid posting in HTML; plain text only, please. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 20:54:59 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:54:59 +1300 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710261154h7127867dpc1e798ed54417c35@mail.gmail.com> On 25/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Appeals Committee's decision > > Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3(c) is alertable. > > If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time. Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here. > > We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information here. If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain. > This seems correct to me given. I am not so sure about the percentages which were 85% for 3NT and only 15% for 3H. > > L&E comment: > > It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible argument that N was not damaged. However, the L&E has concluded on balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3H bid did not require an alert. > > From N's perspective the likely strength for W's 3H ranged from merely competitive to positively invitational. The fact that a purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been inferred from W's decision to bid again. The third basic alerting rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is "natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect". The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert. > This seems wrong to me. If there is a regulation that says that a bid needs an alert because it is 'affected' by other agreements and there is no qualification then the bid needs an alert and it is wrong for any body - director, appeal committee or national body - to subsequently rule otherwise. The laws require that the director be bound by the regulations. That means that he is not empowered to make up exceptions. Similarly the appeal is bound by the regulations - they have the same powers as the director and are not entitled to overturn the director on a point of law. An appeal to the national body (I am not sure if that is what happened here - it may have just been a review of the appeal committee's decision) cannot rule contrary to the laws and regulations. It seems they can or at least should be able to overturn the director on a point of law. Nevertheless the regulation here appears unambiguous and the bid requires an alert since it is affected by other agreements. The low percentage (high percentage) as the L&E committee correctly note reflects that in this case there was little damage. That is the correct approach once you have a regulation that requires a bid to be alerted. Wayne From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 26 21:05:12 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:05:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] ****************************************** "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish are one another's works." ~ Jacques Martin Barzun. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' =+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- Swiss Pairs Dealer E N/S vul .................... North .................... S: A 4 .................... H: A 5 4 .................... D: A Q 10 6 5 West ............... C: Q J 7 ........East S: K T 7 5 .......................... S: Q J 9 3 H: J T 8 7 6 3 ...................... H: K 2 D: K T 2 ............................ D: K J 3 2 C: - ............... South .......... C: 9 5 4 .................... S: 8 6 2 .................... H: Q 9 .................... D: 9 8 7 4 .................... C: A 8 6 3 West__North__East_South ............ 1N(1) _P 2D(2) _X ... _P(3) 3D 3H(4) 3N ... AP 1N = 10-13 2D = Explained simply as ?transfer? 2H = Denies 3-card support Result: 3NT?2 N/S ?200 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tournament Director?s statement of facts & ruling: Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for a ruling; details were submitted on Saturday afternoon. N/S are claiming damage on the grounds that the 3H bid should have been alerted, as its meaning was affected by other agreements, and that the ?transfer? explanation was insufficient. E/W play that an immediate 3H response to 1N is pre-emptive. N claims that, armed with this knowledge, it is less likely that she would have bid 3N. I ruled that 3H is not alertable ? it is competitive in nature, and is scarcely affected by undisclosed agreements. The opponents could reasonably expect that there were other such agreements, and had the opportunity to ask for any further implications about the bid. 3H was a free bid, and therefore hardly likely to be made on a weak hand. Even with a ?correct? explanation, I don?t believe that N would have bid any differently. I allowed the result to stand. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Appeals Committee?s decision Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3H is alertable. If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time. Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here. We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information here. If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain. We adjusted the score to:- 15% of 3H?1 by W: N/S +50 plus 85% of 3N?2 by N: N/S ?200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ L&E comment: It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible argument that N was not damaged. However, the L&E has concluded on balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3? bid did not require an alert. From N?s perspective the likely strength for W?s 3? ranged from merely competitive to positively invitational. The fact that a purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been inferred from W?s decision to bid again. The third basic alerting rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is ?natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect?. The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr Endicott undertook to place the agreed minute on BLML. Presumably the subject must have been discussed on blml at some stage. [nige1] I've reformatted the ruling as plain text -- it is frustrating that such documents are so often published in awkward, slow to download, bulky, difficult to quote PDF :( This case seems to have prompted a change (for the worse, IMO) in EBU regulations :( Richard Hills (the only 2005 Appeals commentator who would have ruled for the appellants), opined that, in his explanation of 2D, East should have included the negative inference that a 3H bid was a available for a poor hand with 6H. IMO, Richard is right :) A worrying aspect of the case is that some official commentators felt that the N-S deposit should have been forfeited :( To my mind, this bizarre recommendation demonstrates that the law book should supply clear guidelines as to when an appeal may be judged to be without merit. IMO an appeal certainly has merit if ... [1] The director appeals his own ruling (for example because he believes it to be an important test case). [2] An official appeals adviser judges the appellants to have a case. [3] A lower committee changes the original ruling. [4] The committee uncovers substantial new facts, alters the ruling of the director, or adduces different reasoning. [5] The committee aren't unanimous in their ruling. [6] The committee aren't unanimous that the appeal has no merit. Perhaps the official criteria should be different from these; but without official guidelines, different committees will judge appeals to be without merit, on different arbitrary grounds. I accept that the current malaise may be in accord with the WBF policy of promoting "Judgement" and the WBF's strange concept of "Equity"; but I'm afraid that blatant inconsistency may be viewed as unfair by less sophisticated ordinary players :( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 26 21:28:02 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:28:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47223FC2.3060709@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] ****************************************** "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish are one another's works." ~ Jacques Martin Barzun. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' =+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- Swiss Pairs Dealer E N/S vul .................... North .................... S: A 4 .................... H: A 5 4 .................... D: A Q 10 6 5 West ............... C: Q J 7 ........East S: K T 7 5 .......................... S: Q J 9 3 H: J T 8 7 6 3 ...................... H: K 2 D: K T 2 ............................ D: K J 3 2 C: - ............... South .......... C: 9 5 4 .................... S: 8 6 2 .................... H: Q 9 .................... D: 9 8 7 4 .................... C: A 8 6 3 West__North__East_South ............ 1N(1) _P 2D(2) _X ... _P(3) 3D 3H(4) 3N ... AP 1N = 10-13 2D = Explained simply as "transfer"? 2H = Denies 3-card support Result: 3NT-2 N/S -200 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tournament Director's statement of facts & ruling: Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for a ruling; details were submitted on Saturday afternoon. N/S are claiming damage on the grounds that the 3H bid should have been alerted, as its meaning was affected by other agreements, and that the "transfer"? explanation was insufficient. E/W play that an immediate 3H response to 1N is pre-emptive. N claims that, armed with this knowledge, it is less likely that she would have bid 3N. I ruled that 3H is not alertable. it is competitive in nature, and is scarcely affected by undisclosed agreements. The opponents could reasonably expect that there were other such agreements, and had the opportunity to ask for any further implications about the bid. 3H was a free bid, and therefore hardly likely to be made on a weak hand. Even with a "correct"? explanation, I don't believe that N would have bid any differently. I allowed the result to stand. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Appeals Committee's decision Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3H is alertable. If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time. Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here. We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information here. If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain. We adjusted the score to:- 15% of 3H-1 by W: N/S +50 plus 85% of 3N-2 by N: N/S -200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ L&E comment: It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible argument that N was not damaged. However, the L&E has concluded on balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3H bid did not require an alert. From N's perspective the likely strength for W's 3H ranged from merely competitive to positively invitational. The fact that a purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been inferred from W's decision to bid again. The third basic alerting rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr Endicott undertook to place the agreed minute on BLML. Presumably the subject must have been discussed on blml at some stage. [nige1] I've reformatted the ruling as plain text -- it is frustrating that such documents are so often published in awkward, slow to download, bulky, difficult to quote PDF :( This case seems to have prompted a change (for the worse, IMO) in EBU regulations :( Richard Hills (the only 2005 Appeals commentator who would have ruled for the appellants) opined that, in his explanation of 2D, East should have included the negative inference that a 3H bid was a available for a poor hand with 6H. Richard echoed the original appeal. IMO, he is right :) A worrying aspect of the case is that some official commentators felt that the N-S deposit should have been forfeited :( To my mind, this bizarre recommendation demonstrates that the law book should supply clear guidelines as to when an appeal may be judged to be without merit. IMO an appeal certainly has merit if ... [1] The director appeals his own ruling (for example because he believes it to be an important test case). [2] An official appeals adviser judges the appellants to have a case. [3] A lower committee changes the original ruling. [4] The committee uncovers substantial new facts, alters the ruling of the director, or adduces different reasoning. [5] The committee aren't unanimous in their ruling. [6] The committee aren't unanimous that the appeal has no merit. Perhaps the official criteria should be different from these; but without official guidelines, different committees will judge appeals to be without merit, on different arbitrary grounds. I accept that the current malaise may be in accord with the WBF policy of promoting "Judgement" and the WBF's strange concept of "Equity"; but I'm afraid that blatant inconsistency may be viewed as unfair by less sophisticated ordinary players :( From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 26 23:09:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:09:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <4721EA3D.6010700@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0710260545j77db9ad2y605331f6e9a5db1@mail.gmail.com> <4721EA3D.6010700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <11C3C43C-CA7A-45F4-81E5-21E6DFFFD240@starpower.net> On Oct 26, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Jerry] > I too would like to hear some explanation why, for it seems wrong to > me. This lack of a need to alert when negative inferences exist is > also present in the ACBL, including the the Oct 2007 Bridge Bulletin. > The quote is "In general, inferential calls do not require an Alert > [sic]." The example there is a pass when support doubles are in effect > showing at most two of partner's suit. Valuable information received, > but not given to the opponents. I don't claim to follow the vagaries of the ever-changing ACBL alert rules, but I'd be very surprised if this example were correct; regardless, I would expect an "actively ethical" player to alert such a pass. There may be some confusion. Playing support doubles as originally devised (i.e. merely differentiating between three- and four-card raises), passing carries negative inferences (a hand unsuitable for any raise) that do (and should) not, per the ACBL policy, require an alert. But these days many users of support doubles demand a double with any hand including three-card support, so that a pass systemically guarantees at most two cards in partner's suit. That sure sounds like an artificial agreement, not a mere negative inference. Indeed, this strikes me as an excellent example of the not-so-easy-to-define difference between them. [OT: Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the rationale behind the "mandatory" support double; I don't get it.] > [nige1] > I agree with Paul and Jerry that negative inferences are often > critical and the law should facilitate rather than prevent their > disclosure. For expert pairs, the most common negative inference is > that when partner opens and RHO overcalls, a pass is virtually > forcing. Because, he plays negative doubles, advancer's pass includes > strong hands with length and strength in RHO's suit. Even if the > opener has a weak opener he *must* conventionally reopen, unless he > too has opponent's suit. > > The pass is *never* alerted but, although there is a definite logic to > this method, the idea that a pass can conceal such a strong hand will > come as a surprise to some ordinary players. That, OTOH, is an inappropriate example for the ACBL, where routine negative doubles are considered "standard" and are not alertable (and penalty doubles in ordinary negative double situations are). Beginners are routinely taught and play negative doubles and understand (or at least have learned by rote) that they must pass with a strong hand that would otherwise double. Unlike support doubles, this is routine, everyday stuff, hardly a surprise to "ordinary players" with any experience beyond their kitchen tables. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 00:43:30 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:43:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry] > > North chooses not to ask the meaning of West's alerted call because > North wants his next call to be interpreted as natural by South. (He > is afraid his desired next call would become artificial once East > explains West's call.) Would you say that North's failure to ask to > gain this advantage is an infraction? [Eric] Of course. If he didn't ask *because* he *wanted* his failure to do so to affect South's interpretation of his call, he is, at minimum, "communicat[ing] through... questions... not asked" in violation of L73B1, and if his partner "reads" the message, he may well be in violation of L73B2. Admittedly, that goes to his motivation, and might not be actionable in practice. Regardless, South has potential UI from North's failure to ask, must presume that North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must continue accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North. [Jerry] Thanks, that's what I was hoping for: "South...must presume that North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must continue accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North." When making a Law 73B1 ruling, we don't really have to know North's reason for not asking. Now, if only I can get ACBL directors to agree with this when sitting East-West. I have failed in the past, but your sentence combined with a reference to L73B1 may be the way to try it next time. Your sentence seems like the only logical interpretation to me, but I might not be able to convince a director that it is specifically what the laws require. I wonder where in the laws it is clearest that South must presume that North knew the meaning. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 27 08:37:19 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:37:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: > I've reformatted the ruling as plain text -- it is frustrating that > such documents are so often published in awkward, slow to download, > bulky, difficult to quote PDF :( No matter what you do, no matter how much trouble you go to to get stuff out on the web, *somebody* will always complain that it's not good enough. :-( From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Oct 27 17:07:48 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:07:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: When not asking a question changes your agreements References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: [blml] Fwd: When not asking a question changes your agreements > > Thanks, that's what I was hoping for: "South...must presume that > North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must > continue > accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North." When making > a Law 73B1 ruling, we don't really have to know North's reason for not > asking. > > Now, if only I can get ACBL directors to agree with this when sitting > East-West. I have failed in the past, but your sentence combined with > a reference to L73B1 may be the way to try it next time. > > Your sentence seems like the only logical interpretation to me, but I > might not be able to convince a director that it is specifically what > the laws require. I wonder where in the laws it is clearest that > South must presume that North knew the meaning. > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ Examining the 2007 Codex I note Law 40A2. North has obtained no information concerning the meanings of opponents' calls except from their disclosures under Law 40A1(b). So are we not basing the understanding of everyone's part in the legal auction upon those disclosures? I fail to understand what other basis there could be. Do we have any reason to question the fact that North will have called on that basis? What other authorized information is it suggested he has (or may have) to act upon? I am struggling to follow the discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 17:29:16 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:29:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com> On 10/27/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > > I've reformatted the ruling as plain text -- it is frustrating that > > such documents are so often published in awkward, slow to download, > > bulky, difficult to quote PDF :( > > No matter what you do, no matter how much trouble you go to to get > stuff out on the web, *somebody* will always complain that it's not > good enough. :-( > When I saw the PDF, I smiled and thought to myself, "At last I can easily look at the hands." I can't see why anyone would complain about a little PDF. Slow to download---really? How many seconds are we talking about? Difficult to quote?---there is a text-select tool, and a slice tool too, for quoting. Plain-text hand diagrams are much more difficult to read, aren't they? I tell you what I'll do. I will trade a careful explanation of how to make PDFs work with someone who can explain to me how to make plain-text hand records work. Jerry Fusselman From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 28 10:42:44 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:42:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Without merit? References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred><47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com><5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Without merit? > On 10/27/07, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Guthrie wrote: >> >> > I've reformatted the ruling as plain text -- it is frustrating that >> > such documents are so often published in awkward, slow to download, >> > bulky, difficult to quote PDF :( >> >> No matter what you do, no matter how much trouble you go to to get >> stuff out on the web, *somebody* will always complain that it's not >> good enough. :-( >> > > When I saw the PDF, I smiled and thought to myself, "At last I can > easily look at the hands." I can't see why anyone would complain > about a little PDF. Slow to download---really? How many seconds are > we talking about? Difficult to quote?---there is a text-select tool, > and a slice tool too, for quoting. > > Plain-text hand diagrams are much more difficult to read, aren't they? > I tell you what I'll do. I will trade a careful explanation of how to > make PDFs work with someone who can explain to me how to make > plain-text hand records work. > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ I just passed it on in the form it was supplied to me. It seemed to be possible to read it. Who would wish to do more? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 11:31:39 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:31:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com> <001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <20071028063139.3f9c5d74@linuxbox> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:42:44 -0000 "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > +=+ I just passed it on in the form it was supplied to me. > It seemed to be possible to read it. Who would wish > to do more? Well, in the format in which it arrived here, it was rather difficult to read the hand and the bidding. The decisions and rulings were OK, though. I'll cut and paste the top of the original message (below) so you can see what I mean. Brian. +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- Dealer E N/S vul North Swiss Pairs ? ? ? ? A 4 A 5 4 A Q 10 6 5 Q J 7 West East ? ? ? ? K 10 7 5 J 10 8 7 6 3 - K 10 2 ? ? ? ? Q J 9 3 K 2 K J 3 2 9 5 4 South ? ? ? ? 8 6 2 Q 9 9 8 7 4 A 8 6 3 Bidding: West North East South 1NT1 Pass 2?2 Dbl PassA3 3? 3? 3NT Pass Pass Pass 1 10-13 2 Explained simply as "transfer" 3 Denies 3-card support Result: 3NT-2 N/S -200 -- From mustikka at charter.net Sun Oct 28 15:45:13 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:45:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Without merit? References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred><47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com><5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com><2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com><001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> <20071028063139.3f9c5d74@linuxbox> Message-ID: <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian" > Well, in the format in which it arrived here, it was rather difficult to > read the hand and the bidding. The decisions and rulings were OK, > though. I'll cut and paste the top of the original message (below) so > you can see what I mean. > > Brian. This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely spaced. I use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and mail. Dealer E N/S vul North Swiss Pairs ? ? ? ? A 4 A 5 4 A Q 10 6 5 Q J 7 West East ? ? ? ? K 10 7 5 J 10 8 7 6 3 - K 10 2 ? ? ? ? Q J 9 3 K 2 K J 3 2 9 5 4 South ? ? ? ? 8 6 2 Q 9 9 8 7 4 A 8 6 3 Bidding: West North East South 1NT1 Pass 2?2 Dbl PassA3 3? 3? 3NT Pass Pass Pass 1 10-13 2 Explained simply as ?transfer? 3 Denies 3-card support Result: 3NT?2 N/S ?200 Tournament Director?s statement of facts & ruling Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for a ruling; details were .... From geller at nifty.com Sun Oct 28 15:46:20 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:46:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> References: <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200710281446.AA11171@geller204.nifty.com> raija writes: >This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely spaced. I >use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and mail. Unfortunately the file was all screwed up for me too. In the future please send such files as attachments, rather than just pasting them into the mail window. Thanks. -Bob From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 16:38:22 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <200710281446.AA11171@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> <200710281446.AA11171@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710280838k1e70f12dg51c03dee5b7df7fd@mail.gmail.com> On 10/28/07, Robert Geller wrote: > raija writes: > > >This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely spaced. I > >use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and mail. > > Unfortunately the file was all screwed up for me too. > In the future please send such files as attachments, rather than > just pasting them into the mail window. Thanks. > > -Bob > Does anyone have difficulty reading PDF *attachments*---or hate them for some other reason? I ask because sometimes the easiest way to share my idea would be with a PDF. (I realize that sometimes PDFs do not have the proper font embedded, but mine should be okay in that regard.) Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 17:13:49 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:13:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen> References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0710280913p38c5081bwbce5fce8d153ea5d@mail.gmail.com> On 10/27/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "A finished product is one that > has already seen its better days." > {Art Linkletter} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:43 PM > Subject: [blml] Fwd: When not asking a question changes your agreements > > > > > > Thanks, that's what I was hoping for: "South...must presume that > > North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must > > continue > > accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North." When making > > a Law 73B1 ruling, we don't really have to know North's reason for not > > asking. > > > > Now, if only I can get ACBL directors to agree with this when sitting > > East-West. I have failed in the past, but your sentence combined with > > a reference to L73B1 may be the way to try it next time. > > > > Your sentence seems like the only logical interpretation to me, but I > > might not be able to convince a director that it is specifically what > > the laws require. I wonder where in the laws it is clearest that > > South must presume that North knew the meaning. > > > > Jerry Fusselman > > > +=+ Examining the 2007 Codex I note Law 40A2. North has > obtained no information concerning the meanings of opponents' > calls except from their disclosures under Law 40A1(b). So are > we not basing the understanding of everyone's part in the legal > auction upon those disclosures? I fail to understand what other > basis there could be. Do we have any reason to question the > fact that North will have called on that basis? What other > authorized information is it suggested he has (or may have) to > act upon? I am struggling to follow the discussion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I certainly appreciate your wish to follow the discussion. Eric understood my topic perfectly and wrote, "South...must presume that North knew the meaning of West's call without having to ask, and must continue accordingly, even absent any actual infraction by North." (The possible infraction by North would be to deliberately not ask the meaning of West's call in order to communicate to partner, but let us assume that we cannot divine North's motivations.) I cannot tell, Grattan, whether you agree with this statement of Eric's in all respects or not. I am afraid I cannot perfectly understand your questions. Maybe I can help a little with your questions if I mention that it is *possible* that North is familiar with the opponent's agreements here by looking at their convention card, but South ignores convention cards and just goes by spoken explanations, if any. Another way to put my question is as follows. What would say about a director who finds no damage is possible in North's and South's actions, reasoning as follows?: "North has an absolute right to not ask the meaning of the opponent's calls. When he does not ask, South may reasonably assume that North did not know the meaning of West's call. Granted, had North known, then his 2D bid would have been a cue bid, not showing diamonds. But that's irrelevant, because North most likely did not know this when he made his call, so South may reasonably assume that North's 2D bid is natural." Personally, I think that is terrible reasoning on the director's part. I agree with Eric. What do you think about it? Jerry Fusselman From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 18:10:19 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:10:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com> <001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> <20071028063139.3f9c5d74@linuxbox> <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <20071028131019.785d4b09@linuxbox> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:45:13 -0700 "raija" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian" > > Well, in the format in which it arrived here, it was rather > > difficult to read the hand and the bidding. The decisions and > > rulings were OK, though. I'll cut and paste the top of the original > > message (below) so you can see what I mean. > > > > Brian. > > This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely > spaced. I use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and > mail. > And your copy appeared to me in exactly the same way as Grattan's did, i.e. with the format all over the place. The problem with posting with a client such as Outlook Express is that unless you're careful in setting it up, you're (possibly unknowingly) embedding Microsoft's standards into your mail. The idea of mailing lists is that they are supposed to be a TEXT medium, that's as in just plain ASCII, so that people who don't use the same proprietary software as you can read the postings as well. I'm not prepared to go to the trouble of setting up something like OE to run under a Windows emulator, mainly because I don't see why I (and presumably any other Linux user) should have to. My mail and news client works just fine for all the other lists and newsgroups I read, I'm not about to run different clients for different lists/newsgroups. Mac users may have a similar viewpoint (Ed, did Grattan's post appear OK to you?) Brian. -- From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 28 18:58:48 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:58:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <20071028131019.785d4b09@linuxbox> References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> <47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com> <5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com> <001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen> <20071028063139.3f9c5d74@linuxbox> <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> <20071028131019.785d4b09@linuxbox> Message-ID: <3AA85CA8-222D-4314-A281-5C5E3E518DA8@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 28, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Brian wrote: > (Ed, did Grattan's post appear OK to you?) The original one did, yes. Peoples' later cut-and-paste efforts did not. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 28 12:37:14 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:37:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <2b1e598b0710260545j77db9ad2y605331f6e9a5db1@mail.gmail.com><4721EA3D.6010700@ntlworld.com> <11C3C43C-CA7A-45F4-81E5-21E6DFFFD240@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c819a4$d3598750$adcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. >> [nige1] >> I agree with Paul and Jerry that negative inferences are often >> critical and the law should facilitate rather than prevent their >> disclosure. For expert pairs, the most common negative inference is >> that when partner opens and RHO overcalls, a pass is virtually >> forcing. Because, he plays negative doubles, advancer's pass includes >> strong hands with length and strength in RHO's suit. Even if the >> opener has a weak opener he *must* conventionally reopen, unless he >> too has opponent's suit. >> >> The pass is *never* alerted but, although there is a definite logic to >> this method, the idea that a pass can conceal such a strong hand will >> come as a surprise to some ordinary players. > > That, OTOH, is an inappropriate example for the ACBL, where routine > negative doubles are considered "standard" and are not alertable (and > penalty doubles in ordinary negative double situations are). > Beginners are routinely taught and play negative doubles and > understand (or at least have learned by rote) that they must pass > with a strong hand that would otherwise double. Unlike support > doubles, this is routine, everyday stuff, hardly a surprise to > "ordinary players" with any experience beyond their kitchen tables. > +=+ A non-alert may be taken to deny a meaning such as would be alertable. So the presumption, surely, is that players who know what is alertable are not misinformed when there is no alert of a call that is not alertable. To my mind, therefore, the question is how clearly the alerting regulation is expresseed. The corollary is that the prior disclosure requirements should be adequate and sufficiently enforced to provide a fair backdrop. The Director/AC should be cautious in non-alert situations not to suggest too readily that a player should 'have protected his own back' when there is no particular reason to find it strange that there is no alert. ~ G ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Sun Oct 28 23:56:16 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:56:16 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 28/10/2007 20:55:41 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: >The corollary is that the prior disclosure requirements should >be adequate and sufficiently enforced to provide a fair backdrop. I can accept this. It was the main point made by Richard Hills who felt that the appeal committee missed the point and that the explanation "transfer" was incorrect and should have been "transfer, but if it is a six-card suit, it will have values, as 3H would be pre-emptive". I expect that explanations will normally be more succint than that, so full disclosure will rarely occur in practice. In the case in question the L&EC decided that the "degree of unexpectedness" of the fact that 1NT-3H would be pre-emptive was insufficient for an alert of the 3H bid in the actual auction. The original AC decided that the fact that 1NT-3H was pre-emptive would be unexpected, and the fact that bidding 3H on the following round now showed a hand with six hearts, and, either four spades, or more values, should have been explained to the opponents by an alert or by a fuller explanation instead of transfer. Hands that were weak with six hearts were excluded, and this was known to the opponents but not to us. The AC made a clear error in missing that the hand opposite the doubler could have bid 2H to show a good raise, so they wrongly concluded that North would be forced to guess more, because we were not played Lebensohl. (If the transfer had been completed, then 2NT would be Lebensohl, while 2NT should be natural when it is not). It seems that the old wording that required one to alert a bid whose meaning was affected by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to expect was spot on, and the new wording is just wrong. But the L&EC thinks otherwise, and we appoint them to decide on these issues in England. It seems that the change in the requirements for an alert has its opponents, and it might be worth the L&EC addressing this issue again before the next Orange Book. I shall put up a thread on IBLF to see if there is support for this view. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 29 00:44:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:44:28 EDT Subject: [blml] Without merit? Message-ID: In a message dated 26/10/2007 19:05:56 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: >This case seems to have prompted a change (for the worse, IMO) in EBU >regulations :( This is the most important question; I concur, but do others? >Richard Hills (the only 2005 Appeals commentator who would have ruled >for the appellants) ... As stated in a previous post, two of the commentators were the other side in this case, and, although I regard them as two players of the highest ethics, I don't think they should have been invited to comment on a case in which they were involved. I cannot concur with DWS's (privately conveyed) opinion that they could have excused themselves if they thought fit. The selection of commentators therefore started with an inbuilt bias against the AC. ... opined that, in his explanation of 2D, East >should have included the negative inference that a 3H bid was a >available for a poor hand with 6H. IMO, Richard is right :) >A worrying aspect of the case is that some official commentators felt >that the N-S deposit should have been forfeited :( >To my mind, this bizarre recommendation demonstrates that the law book >should supply clear guidelines as to when an appeal may be judged to >be without merit. I think bizarre is not strong enough. "Unsuitable to be an official commentator" would be my opinion of someone who opines that a deposit should have been forfeited when the appellants actually received an adjusted score in their favour! The commentators are clearly disciples of the maxim: Olim habeas eorum pecuniam, numquam eam reddis: prima regula quaesitus. From mustikka at charter.net Mon Oct 29 00:54:50 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:54:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Without merit? References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred><47223A68.90702@ntlworld.com><5F30A267-9E02-4A49-8792-D3A03D011524@rochester.rr.com><2b1e598b0710270829j724337cbge05c65b8215bb217@mail.gmail.com><001801c81946$f0d42820$0d9c87d9@Hellen><20071028063139.3f9c5d74@linuxbox> <000c01c81971$2603c800$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000501c819bd$f0c0f530$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Ugh. It *WAS* legible, nicely spaced and clear when it arrived. Apparently sending it on changes into garbage... ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Without merit? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian" >> Well, in the format in which it arrived here, it was rather difficult to >> read the hand and the bidding. The decisions and rulings were OK, >> though. I'll cut and paste the top of the original message (below) so >> you can see what I mean. >> >> Brian. > > This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely spaced. I > use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and mail. > > Dealer E > N/S vul > > > > North > > > > Swiss Pairs > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > A 4 > > A 5 4 > > A Q 10 6 5 > > Q J 7 > > > > > > > West > East > > > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > K 10 7 5 > > J 10 8 7 6 3 > > - > > K 10 2 > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > Q J 9 3 > > K 2 > > K J 3 2 > > 9 5 4 > > > > > South > > > > > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > 8 6 2 > > Q 9 > > 9 8 7 4 > > A 8 6 3 > > > > Bidding: > West > North > East > South > > > > > > > 1NT1 > Pass > > > > > 2?2 > Dbl > PassA3 > 3? > > > > > 3? > 3NT > Pass > Pass > > > > > Pass > > > > > > > 1 10-13 > 2 Explained simply as ?transfer? > 3 Denies 3-card support > > > > Result: 3NT?2 N/S ?200 > > > > > Tournament Director?s statement of facts & ruling > > Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for a > ruling; > details were .... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 29 05:24:15 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:24:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0710280913p38c5081bwbce5fce8d153ea5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0710280913p38c5081bwbce5fce8d153ea5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fuselman] Another way to put my question is as follows. What would say about a director who finds no damage is possible in North's and South's actions, reasoning as follows?: "North has an absolute right to not ask the meaning of the opponent's calls. When he does not ask, South may reasonably assume that North did not know the meaning of West's call. Granted, had North known, then his 2D bid would have been a cue bid, not showing diamonds. But that's irrelevant, because North most likely did not know this when he made his call, so South may reasonably assume that North's 2D bid is natural." Personally, I think that is terrible reasoning on the director's part. I agree with Eric. What do you think about it? [nige1] In theory, Jerry, Eric, and Grattan are clearly right. In practice, as Jerry implies, players (and directors) often "misunderstand" the law. IMO, such law-breakers usually escape retribution. Typically, a player benefits from such infractions many times, before, eventually, he cheerfully accepts an adverse ruling. It will normally accord with modern "Equity" law: it will provide partial redress to his victims for this *one occasion* but leave the player with a handsome overall profit (and his victims with a large long-term loss). If he is sensible, he will then avoid this ploy for the remainder of the competition. But he will not be deterred from rationalising and resuming such profitable bad habits at a later date. If he needs any justification he can (mis?) interpret 40B3 :) A long term solution may be universal simpler clearer more complete disclosure laws From geller at nifty.com Mon Oct 29 06:49:08 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:49:08 +0900 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> Guthrie writes: >A long term solution may be universal simpler clearer more complete >disclosure laws These are highly desirable, but they are not "laws" to be decided on by WBFLC but rather regulations to be adopted by each NBO (taking into account local conditions on what's generally known in that country). Of course the WBF could perhaps further improve its regulations in this area which would then serve as a model for local organizations. But the problem is the WBF runs tourneys for highly experienced players using complex systems, while what's needed in most countries is first of all regulations for ordinary players facing less complex systems than used at the world level but who are also less unable to protect themselves against these moderate systems than are world class players facing complex systems. Anyway, a tough but important topic. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 26 10:10:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:10:47 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: Grattan Endicott<_gesta at tiscali.co.uk_ (mailto:gesta at tiscali.co.uk) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071026/2ed819c1/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Oct 28 22:59:02 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:59:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <009b01c816e9$e94eb660$62d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <02e101c819ad$c08b7260$cc762bd9@stefanie> > L&E comment: > It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in > the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible > argument that N was not damaged. However, the L&E has concluded on > balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3H > bid did not require an alert. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The L&E Committee has reached entirely the wrong conclusion from the score adjustment made by the Appeals Committee. The AC felt that North was not greatly damaged; however, the Committee did conclude that the bid in question was alertable, and this was the main basis for the appeal. Surely these are two different decisions, which the L&E Committee seem to have conflated into one. A review of this case seems to have been the basis for the major change in the Orange Book, since the auction is used as an example case. I think that the change is wrong, but I suppose that the L&E Committee felt they had a good reason for making it. The Orange Book's chief author was the director in the case, and the Appeals Committee chairman is also on the L&E, so it is clear that there were differing views and that the decision was not made lightly. This appeal took place over a year ago; why have the L&E decided to post the details of it now? Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071028/f8e6a5b3/attachment.htm From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Mon Oct 29 11:55:52 2007 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:55:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty Message-ID: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> The new Law says that an IB may be replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that 'incorporates' the information contained in the IB. What does 'incorporate' mean? To my mind the info obtained from the IB must as a minimum be also available from the replacement bid. Here are two common situations that bother me. 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. No problem if he now bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding values, for that is what the IB showed. But what if the pair are playing a more value showing double which does not specifically show at least four hearts? I would be inclined to disallow it, but I'm sure there will be other opinions. Example 2: 1D - 2S - 1NT (responder thought the overca;ll was 1S). 1NT by agreement shows a good 7 to 10 HCP with a stopper, 2NT would show a good 10 to 12 HCP with a stopper. The present law allows the IB to be corrected to 2NT with opponents protected by 27B1 (b). But does the 2NT bid 'incorporate' the info from the 1NT bid with its specific upper limit of HCP range? I would think not. I would be happy to let the auction continue as we do now ans apply 27C2 as in the past. But I'm not sure that the new Law allows this..Common sense says allow it, but I'm not sure that a strict reading of the Law would do so. My predictionis that this will be the new Law that causes most headaches for the average club director. They will need some specific guidelines. Reg Busch From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 29 12:03:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:03:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: Message-ID: <005001c81a1b$66623350$01a887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > In a message dated 28/10/2007 20:55:41 GMT Standard Time, > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > >>The corollary is that the prior disclosure requirements should >>be adequate and sufficiently enforced to provide a fair backdrop. > > I can accept this. It was the main point made by Richard Hills who felt > that the appeal committee missed the point and that the explanation > "transfer" was incorrect and should have been "transfer, but if it is a > six-card > suit, it will have values, as 3H would be pre-emptive". I expect that > explanations will normally be more succint than that, so full disclosure > will rarely occur in practice. > > In the case in question the L&EC decided that the "degree of > unexpectedness" of the fact that 1NT-3H would be pre-emptive was > insufficient for an alert of the 3H bid in the actual auction. The > original > AC decided that the fact that 1NT-3H was pre-emptive would be > unexpected, and the fact that bidding 3H on the following round now > showed a hand with six hearts, and, either four spades, or more values, > should have been explained to the opponents by an alert or by a fuller > explanation instead of transfer. Hands that were weak with six > hearts were excluded, and this was known to the opponents but not > to us. The AC made a clear error in missing that the hand opposite the > doubler could have bid 2H to show a good raise, so they wrongly > concluded that North would be forced to guess more, because we > were not played Lebensohl. (If the transfer had been completed, then > 2NT would be Lebensohl, while 2NT should be natural when it is not). > > It seems that the old wording that required one to alert a bid whose > meaning was affected by other agreements the opponents were > unlikely to expect was spot on, and the new wording is just wrong. > But the L&EC thinks otherwise, and we appoint them to decide on > these issues in England. It seems that the change in the requirements > for an alert has its opponents, and it might be worth the L&EC > addressing this issue again before the next Orange Book. I shall > put up a thread on IBLF to see if there is support for this view. > > +=+ The 2006 Orange Book contains six pages of rules on alerting, comprising about 250 lines of type. I am unconvinced that the effort to provide this amount of detail achieves any useful object (antecedent to play, that is - it may provide a point of reference subsequent to play in contentious situations). I do notice that 5G3(l) contains an oblique reference to a non-forcing 3H response to 1NT, but to now I have failed to identify where the alerting rules deal directly with the 3H response. It does look to me as though the 2006 OB alerting requirements are a study in themselves, for many players, in all probability, considerably more arduous than their preparation of a system, especially in relation to what constitutes an 'unexpected meaning'. I am wondering in what manner it is to be disclosed that "the fact that bidding 3H on the following round now showed a hand with six hearts, and, either four spades, or more values" (sic). Is this information not such as to appear on the convention card (at least sufficiently to draw attention to the existence of special inferences)? I pass no judgement on this except to infer a measure of surprise - or as it may be confusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 29 12:41:09 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:41:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> [nige1] A long term solution may be universal simpler clearer more complete disclosure laws [Bob Geller] These are highly desirable, but they are not "laws" to be decided on by WBFLC but rather regulations to be adopted by each NBO (taking into account local conditions on what's generally known in that country). Of course the WBF could perhaps further improve its regulations in this area which would then serve as a model for local organizations. But the problem is the WBF runs tourneys for highly experienced players using complex systems, while what's needed in most countries is first of all regulations for ordinary players facing less complex systems than used at the world level but who are also less unable to protect themselves against these moderate systems than are world class players facing complex systems. Anyway, a tough but important topic. [nige1: just rehearsing some previous suggestions] IMO most disclosure "rules" can be global "laws" rather than local "regulations"... [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and solves problems mentioned in recent threads). [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition matches for TV, and so on. [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that partner can explain it, himself. Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 29 13:21:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:21:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: Message-ID: <00a301c81a26$432ed040$01a887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Say again +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: Gampas at aol.com To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: Grattan Endicott In a message dated 29/10/2007 11:04:22 GMT Standard Time, grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: >I am wondering in what manner it is to be disclosed that "the >fact that bidding 3H on the following round now showed a hand >with six hearts, and, either four spades, or more values" (sic). Is >this information not such as to appear on the convention card (at >least sufficiently to draw attention to the existence of special >inferences)? I pass no judgement on this except to infer a measure >of surprise - or as it may be confusion. The old manner would be by an alert. The opponent would ask for an explanation. She would be told, by the meticulous discloser: "Because 3H on the previous round would have shown a hand with six hearts, non-forcing, this sequence generally shows invitational values (the exception might be when partner has six hearts and four spades). You can rule out hands such as single-suited and weak with six or seven hearts, even though you might expect these to be possible hands." The new method is by silence and, presumably, by including all such sequences on a convention card. I am sure that 1NT-3M, pre-emptive, would be on my opponents' convention card; I know them to be meticulous in that regard. But the alert was designed to prevent every bid being preceded by a hunt through the card for alternative relevant sequences, or by the start of the round being preceded by a detailed read of the card for nuances that could be useful in specific auctions. The alert is designed to do just that, alert the opponents to the fact that there is something they might not expect. Its abolition is a retrograde step. The aim should be to generate full disclosure. Under the current alerting rules in England, if you play two-suited major suited opening two bids, you alert them, because a second suit of four-cards is guaranteed. If, however, you play that an opening 2H and 2S are either two-suited with that major and a minor, or single-suited with that major and a minor-suit void, you would announce "hearts" or "spades" as appropriate, as no other suit is GUARANTEED. To my mind this abuses the intent of the announcing and alerting procedure which is to give maximum disclosure as quickly as possible. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 29 13:30:10 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:30:10 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 29/10/2007 12:27:10 GMT Standard Time, grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: +=+ Say again +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: Gampas at aol.com To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <4725E0BC.000001.64175@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Reg Busch Date : 10/29/07 11:56:26 A : BLML Sujet : [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty The new Law says that an IB may be replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that 'incorporates' the information contained in the IB. AG : I'm heartily in favor of this rule, even if it means more complexities for TDs. Up to know, scientific methods were illegitimately disadvantaged by L27. You play a natural or semi-natural 1C with natural responses (perhaps including Walsh). The bidding goes : 1C (1S) 1H. You're allowed to replace this bid with 2H (or now, as Reg suggests, by a double, provided it guarantees hearts). You play a natural or semi-natural 1C with T-Walsh. The bidding goes : 1C (1S) 1D. You weren't allowed to change this to a heart-showing bid, even if it is established that a 1D resopnse would have meant hearts and few inferences beyond that. If you now are, it's a big step towards equity. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071029/56deac33/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/20071029/56deac33/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071029/56deac33/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 29 14:37:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:37:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > > IMO most disclosure "rules" can be global "laws" rather than local > "regulations"... > > [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local > jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a > system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers > and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more > detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern > including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). > Local organisations are free to adopt the WBF SC. So [A] is actually already in the "laws". > [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather > than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. > This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and > solves problems mentioned in recent threads). > Announcements are only interesting for parts of a system that are 50/50 distributed around the field. It would be impossible to get the French to agree to announcing 1NT ranges. "15-17" would be very boring. So this does not solve any international problem, any more than an international alert policy will work. > [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from > alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be > allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. > And how do you draw the difference between a player who has "switched off" and still performs the suggested action (with LAs present) and the player who has tuned in and performs that same action quite deliberatly and unethically? > [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be > from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems > of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" > "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the > global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the > hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A > global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual > competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition > matches for TV, and so on. > And what is the standard system in France? in Poland? would you prefer all French pairs to alert 1Cl, or all Polish ones? or both? > [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic > meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that > partner can explain it, himself. > Creating UI of a different nature, but just as big. If partner next makes an "impossible" call, partner knows it's because of misunderstanding and not because of an "impossible" hand. Just as much without hearing the guess as with it. > Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at > best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule > simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. > I don't even consider these five points to be simplifications - quite the contrary! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 29 14:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8126f$fba0ac20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > champion. I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might be rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for a moderate player to attempt such a ploy. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 29 14:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Palimpsest? In-Reply-To: <471F89BD.3030606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > "Is that artificial?" can mean that your subsequent pass suggests a > penalty double, no matter what the answer :) Of course it can - and why shouldn't it, if one's opponents ask questions in the proper form one wouldn't be able to benefit from such an agreement anyway? Equally obvious is that if the question was from one's own side and formed part of such an agreement it would be a breach of L73b1. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 29 14:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <00bc01c81613$bf2d0ed0$6c9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its > own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL > regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Except that Law 80 says: (c) for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organisation in whose territory the tournament takes place. Thus the YC cannot be the RA for it's own competitions whilst Earl's Court remains on English territory. It will be necessary for the EBU to assign RA powers to the YC and for the YC to implement ACBL regulations under those delegated powers. It would not be legal for the ACBL/French games at the YC to continue offering masterpoints from the respective NAs were the EBU to refuse to make such an assignment. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 15:32:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:32:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> References: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Reg Busch wrote: > The new Law says that an IB may be replaced by a bid at the lowest > legal > level or double or pass that 'incorporates' the information contained > in the IB. What does 'incorporate' mean? To my mind the info obtained > from the IB must as a minimum be also available from the replacement > bid. Yup, that's what it means. > Here are two common situations that bother me. > > 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. No problem if he now > bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the > agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding > values, for that is what the IB showed. But what if the pair are > playing > a more value showing double which does not specifically show at least > four hearts? I would be inclined to disallow it, but I'm sure there > will > be other opinions. Right both times. If the double shows at least four hearts and responding values, L27C applies. If the double doesn't promise four hearts, L27D applies; that responder holds four hearts is "unincorporated information" from the IB. > Example 2: 1D - 2S - 1NT (responder thought the overca;ll was 1S). 1NT > by agreement shows a good 7 to 10 HCP with a stopper, 2NT would show a > good 10 to 12 HCP with a stopper. The present law allows the IB to be > corrected to 2NT with opponents protected by 27B1 (b). But does the > 2NT > bid 'incorporate' the info from the 1NT bid with its specific upper > limit of HCP range? I would think not. I would be happy to let the > auction continue as we do now ans apply 27C2 as in the past. But I'm > not sure that the new Law allows this..Common sense says allow it, but > I'm not sure that a strict reading of the Law would do so. Under the new law this is a L27D situation; the "unincorporated information" is that responder does not hold more than 10 HCP for his 2NT bid, which by agreement shows 10-12. IMHO Reg may be conflating common sense with familiarity; I predict that once we get used to the new L27, it will feel more "common- sensical" than the old one. > My predictionis that this will be the new Law that causes most > headaches > for the average club director. They will need some specific > guidelines. Indeed. Of all of the new laws we've discussed, this is the most changed; its conceptual underpinnings are totally different from what they were in the 1997 version. But they're not particularly difficult, and they are a major improvement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 15:50:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:50:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1065A99D-1B99-454C-AD52-57A7AADEC85D@starpower.net> On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its >> own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL >> regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. > > Except that Law 80 says: > (c) for any other tournament or event the National > Bridge Organisation in whose territory the tournament > takes place. > > Thus the YC cannot be the RA for it's own competitions whilst Earl's > Court remains on English territory. > > It will be necessary for the EBU to assign RA powers to the YC and for > the YC to implement ACBL regulations under those delegated powers. > It would not be legal for the ACBL/French games at the YC to continue > offering masterpoints from the respective NAs were the EBU to > refuse to > make such an assignment. There is nothing in L80 that requires the "territory" of an NBO to follow national boundaries. In practice there is no reason why an NBO can't "claim territory" outside of its usual geographic area as long as no other NBO objects. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From picatou at picatou.com Mon Oct 29 16:51:07 2007 From: picatou at picatou.com (Picatou) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:51:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> References: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001e01c81a43$858a3f20$909ebd60$@com> Reg Busch writes: 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. No problem if he now bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding values, for that is what the IB showed. _______________________________________________________________________ Hi all, In my book, "standard" 1D - 1S - X shows at least four hearts, but also some clubs. With this new Law 27, the TD will have to check if the X helps finding a Club contract....the hell... IMHO the new Law 27 will be the one we will more hate...replacing 25B.. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 17:06:27 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:06:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: <47260503.4070102@nhcc.net> I'm afraid the facts weren't clear to me. Was the issue a failure to alert or failure to give a full explanation in response to a question? Alerting is, of course, a matter for the SO, but I'd be surprised if an uncommon negative inference changes the requirement from announce" to "alert." Explanations, however, are a matter of Law, and negative inferences are always supposed to be included. Leaving them out won't often cause damage, but when damage occurs, it should be redressed. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Oct 29 17:31:48 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:31:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <001e01c81a43$858a3f20$909ebd60$@com> Message-ID: This example is one where there is no legal problem relating to the clubs shown by the double. As long as the legal call includes the information given by the illegal call the auction continues 'normally'. The problem in this example is that when the X promises clubs it now can be made without having the clubs and partner should be aware of that. Therefore we might need the safety belt. (this meaning that it also shows clubs sounds very old fashioned to me, I played it in the seventies that way) ton Reg Busch writes: 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. No problem if he now bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding values, for that is what the IB showed. _______________________________________________________________________ Hi all, In my book, "standard" 1D - 1S - X shows at least four hearts, but also some clubs. With this new Law 27, the TD will have to check if the X helps finding a Club contract....the hell... IMHO the new Law 27 will be the one we will more hate...replacing 25B.. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 29 17:34:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:34:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local > jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a > system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers > and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more > detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern > including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). Ever heard of "not invented here" syndrome, Nigel? > [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather > than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. > This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and > solves problems mentioned in recent threads). I don't think so. If it avoids some UI, it certainly creates other UI. > [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from > alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be > allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. Why should I care if the opponents have UI constraints? > [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be > from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems > of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" > "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the > global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the > hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A > global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual > competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition > matches for TV, and so on. There is no standard system, even in places which act as if there is. Besides, SAYC isn't a system, it's a hodgepodge of conventions. If somebody came along and tried to impose a "standard system", whoever did it and whatever it was, players would just ignore them. > [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic > meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that > partner can explain it, himself. Which act in itself conveys the UI that you're unsure. > Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at > best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule > simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. Do you have any evidence for that last supposition, Nigel? On the BBO forums, people often ask "is this-or-that alertable/legal/ ethical?" In fact, online bridge quite often does not follow the laws, and regulations are nebulous, at best. Why is this so? I think there are several reasons, but the big one seems to be that most players don't care. They just want to play something resembling bridge. So online TDs, who are also SOs, just fake it most of the time. I've come to the conclusion that the only correct answer to "is this-or-that alertable/legal/ethical?" in online bridge is "Ask the person who set up your game for you." If you think getting the changes you want implemented in f2f bridge is frustrating, wait until you take on the online world. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 29 17:35:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:35:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55368260-D27A-4EEE-921F-C0BAE1ED3815@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It > might be > rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a > duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational > for a > moderate player to attempt such a ploy. That you say this makes me wonder how you define "rational". From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 29 17:42:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:42:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c81a4a$b40333f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > > champion. > > I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might be > rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a > duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for a > moderate player to attempt such a ploy. True, but mister champion must never be permitted to "hide" behind his "class of player" and have a claim accepted when he forgot to mention some essential aspect of the claim in his statement. If he forgets to mention something it is either because he (for the moment) is unaware of it or because it is so trivial that even mister beginner would not miss it. Claiming for the purpose of having the Director play out the hand as a rested player of his master class would do so that he can avoid silly mistakes due to his fatigue is unacceptable. Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Mon Oct 29 17:53:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:53:28 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 29/10/2007 16:06:41 GMT Standard Time, swillner at nhcc.net writes: >I'm afraid the facts weren't clear to me. Was the issue a failure to >alert or failure to give a full explanation in response to a question? >Alerting is, of course, a matter for the SO, but I'd be surprised if an >uncommon negative inference changes the requirement from announce" to >"alert." Explanations, however, are a matter of Law, and negative >inferences are always supposed to be included. Leaving them out won't >often cause damage, but when damage occurs, it should be redressed. Grattan gave details of the full ruling, which can also be read at _http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm_ (http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm) selecting Appeals 2005, as I know some mail servers garbled the presentation. The basis of the appeal was that there was a failure to alert the 3H bid, although the AC decided it was alertable, but another BLML member also felt that "transfer" was insufficient explanation for a bid which showed 5+ hearts, but systemically, in principle, denied 6+ hearts in a non-invitational hand. However the L&E decided to overrule the AC, and to amend the alerting requirements so that negative inferences were no longer alerted, and they made no comment about the inadequacy or otherwise of the answer "transfer". Under current rules the 2D bid would be announced as "hearts" and no alert would be required for a later competitive 3H bid. Similarly, an auction 1C-(1H)-2C-(2H)-3C is not now alerted if 2NT would have shown a weaker 3C bid. This might well be on the convention card as "we play good-bad 2NT in many situations", but will the average player know which they are likely to be? All ethical pairs would have routinely alerted both bids here, and now should not do so. Another example is (2H) - Dble - (Pass) - 3C is again not alerted whether or not you are playing Lebensohl. Or (1NT) - Pass -(2H!) - Pass - (2S) - Pass - (Pass) - Double - (Pass) - 3D does not get alerted if you could have bid 2NT as two places to play. Many of the opponents of "alert negative inferences the opponents are unlikely to expect" argue that nearly every bid becomes alertable. I don't agree. Perhaps the clause should read that players should alert "a bid whose meaning is likely to be SUBSTANTIALLY altered by other agreements the opponents are unlikely to expect". The current method increases the difficulty of average players in understanding the auctions of strong players. From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 29 18:17:11 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:17:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:10:19 EDT." <20071028131019.785d4b09@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200710291715.KAA23212@mailhub.irvine.com> > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:45:13 -0700 > "raija" wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brian" > > > Well, in the format in which it arrived here, it was rather > > > difficult to read the hand and the bidding. The decisions and > > > rulings were OK, though. I'll cut and paste the top of the original > > > message (below) so you can see what I mean. > > > > > > Brian. > > > > This is the format it arrived to me, perfectly legible, nicely > > spaced. I use simple old Outlook Express to read newsgroups and > > mail. > > > > And your copy appeared to me in exactly the same way as Grattan's did, > i.e. with the format all over the place. I don't know what it looked like to Brian. Here's what it looked like to me (just the top part): ****************************************************************************** +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this decision known on blml:- Dealer E N/S vul North Swiss Pairs \302\252 \302\251 \302\250 \302\247 A 4 A 5 4 A Q 10 6 5 Q J 7 West East \302\252 \302\251 \302\250 \302\247 K 10 7 5 J 10 8 7 6 3 - K 10 2 ****************************************************************************** > The problem with posting with a client such as Outlook Express is that > unless you're careful in setting it up, you're (possibly unknowingly) > embedding Microsoft's standards into your mail. The idea of mailing > lists is that they are supposed to be a TEXT medium, that's as in just > plain ASCII, so that people who don't use the same proprietary software > as you can read the postings as well. I agree with this. Like Brian, I'm a Linux user, at work. (At home, I generally don't want to use computers unless I have to, since I spend all day at work banging on them.) Plus, the system I work with is a bit older. I would ask for a bit of understanding here. I know that a lot of people have used only Windows systems (or maybe Windows and Mac) and their entire idea of how computers work is based on what they're familiar with. So perhaps, for some, it's beyond their ability to fathom that other people have computer systems that just might not work the same. But to draw an analogy, that would be a little like someone who has spent their whole life in a small town in Iowa visiting Russia and being baffled by the fact that the people there can't understand them easily. -- Adam From schoderb at msn.com Mon Oct 29 18:22:21 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:22:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: At the great risk of getting involved in another BLML unending argument, I can't help but take exception to the idea that "rationality" has anything to do with how well you play the game. The later is "class of player" the former has to do with sanity. A bad bridge player remains rationally equal to a good or expert player. To extend the meaning of rational as part of a continuum of bad, fair, good, expert, etc., is to corrupt the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with making mistakes, inferior plays, poor judgements and/or execution of spectacular plays/calls/etc. However, corrupting words to support arguments is by no means something new to BLML. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Sven wrote: > > > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > > champion. > > I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might be > rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a > duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for a > moderate player to attempt such a ploy. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon Oct 29 18:22:21 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:22:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: At the great risk of getting involved in another BLML unending argument, I can't help but take exception to the idea that "rationality" has anything to do with how well you play the game. The later is "class of player" the former has to do with sanity. A bad bridge player remains rationally equal to a good or expert player. To extend the meaning of rational as part of a continuum of bad, fair, good, expert, etc., is to corrupt the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with making mistakes, inferior plays, poor judgements and/or execution of spectacular plays/calls/etc. However, corrupting words to support arguments is by no means something new to BLML. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Sven wrote: > > > > Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > > champion. > > I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might be > rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a > duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for a > moderate player to attempt such a ploy. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 29 18:43:28 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:43:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Without merit? In-Reply-To: <200710291715.KAA23212@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200710291715.KAA23212@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Oct 29, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > But to draw an analogy, that would be a little like > someone who has spent their whole life in a small town in Iowa > visiting Russia and being baffled by the fact that the people there > can't understand them easily. The solution is simple - just yell at them. The louder you yell, the more likely they are to understand you. Oh, wait... From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 18:47:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:47:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <001e01c81a43$858a3f20$909ebd60$@com> References: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au> <001e01c81a43$858a3f20$909ebd60$@com> Message-ID: <28B714D8-8A73-42C4-BC5C-E016981FAE22@starpower.net> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Picatou wrote: > Reg Busch writes: > > 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. No problem if he now > bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the > agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding > values, for that is what the IB showed. > ______________________________________________________________________ > _ > > In my book, "standard" 1D - 1S - X shows at least four hearts, but > also > some clubs. With this new Law 27, the TD will have to check if the X > helps finding a Club contract....the hell... I don't think so. "Incorporation" is strictly one-way: "replaced by a bid... that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid" [L27C1]. The failure of the IB to incorporate the information from the replacement -- clubs in Laval's example -- doesn't matter, and needn't be a concern for the TD. Whether or not the double showed clubs, the 1H IB, which only showed hearts, added no information to what would have been known from the double without the IB. Contrast this with the case someone else raised previously, where the double does not promise four hearts, which is therefore information from the IB not incorporated in the replacement; now responder cannot double without penalty, as the "unincorporated" info could help find a heart contract. Note also that only the information "contained" in the bids matters; there cannot be any consideration of whether the unincorporated info was "used" or "helped", as the incorporation criterion must be evaluated before that can be known (so the auction can continue). > IMHO the new Law 27 will be the one we will more hate...replacing > 25B.. IMNSHO, the new L27 is a major improvement in both fairness and ease of application. I predict that once we understand it -- it is a genuinely radical change -- and get used to it, it will seem natural enough for us to wonder why we didn't do it this way all along. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 29 18:49:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:49:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> [nige1] [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). [Heman De Wael] Local organisations are free to adopt the WBF SC. So [A] is actually already in the "laws". [nige2] I don't think so, Herman. Currently, most jurisdictions define a card format or adopt somebody else's. The WBFLC don't define the WBF card as an official default and exert no local pressure to adopt it. Global defaults would save palaver for non-chauvinist jurisdictions. System card law is just one example for which global defaults would encourage a level playing field. Another is Bidding boxes, especially the use of the the Stop card. Again, jurisdiction would be free to over-ride such rules e.g. to use written bidding. [nige1] [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and solves problems mentioned in recent threads). [Herman] Announcements are only interesting for parts of a system that are 50/50 distributed around the field. It would be impossible to get the French to agree to announcing 1NT ranges. "15-17" would be very boring. So this does not solve any international problem, any more than an international alert policy will work. [nige2] The suggestion is that you announce *instead* of alerting. In general, if it's not now alertable then it need not be announced. (but see proposal D). [nige1] [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. [Herman] And how do you draw the difference between a player who has "switched off" and still performs the suggested action (with LAs present) and the player who has tuned in and performs that same action quite deliberatly and unethically? [nige2] Why try to read somebody'[s mind? Either is UI. And partner must treat it accordingly. Persistent infractions lead to procedural penalties. [nige1] [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition matches for TV, and so on. [Herman] And what is the standard system in France? in Poland? would you prefer all French pairs to alert 1Cl, or all Polish ones? or both? [nige2] I would prefer that we all conform to the Global standard (perhaps SAYC or WBF standard). A dissenting RA can substitute a local standard (Polish club, Leghorn Diamond, Hanoi Heart or whatever). The basic disclosure rules would be unaffected. [nige1] [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that partner can explain it, himself. [Herman[ Creating UI of a different nature, but just as big. If partner next makes an "impossible" call, partner knows it's because of misunderstanding and not because of an "impossible" hand. Just as much without hearing the guess as with it. [nige2] UI is inevitable, when you are asked to disclose some aspect of your system about which you are unsure (even using the De Wael protocol). Partner is just expected to avoid using it. Richard's suggestion is meant to encourage *disclosure*. If it were law, it would hardly ever be invoked, because player's memories would undergo a sudden miraculous improvement :) [nige1] Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. [Herman] I don't even consider these five points to be simplifications - quite the contrary! [nige2] Arguably, players would find them simple logical and fair -- much easier to understand than current disclosure laws and regulations. I value Herman's opinions, however, and thank him for taking the time to criticise these proposals. From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 29 19:22:28 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:22:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty References: <4725BC38.70606@ozemail.com.au><001e01c81a43$858a3f20$909ebd60$@com> <28B714D8-8A73-42C4-BC5C-E016981FAE22@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001701c81a58$a99d1f30$0701a8c0@john> > evaluated before that can be known (so the auction can continue). > >> IMHO the new Law 27 will be the one we will more hate...replacing >> 25B.. > > IMNSHO, the new L27 is a major improvement in both fairness and ease > of application. I predict that once we understand it -- it is a > genuinely radical change -- and get used to it, it will seem natural > enough for us to wonder why we didn't do it this way all along. > I go with the "once we get our heads round it" school. - it seems to me this is "how we play bridge". john > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 29 19:25:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:25:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com><200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com><4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002401c81a59$10165650$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file > > If you think getting the changes you want implemented in f2f bridge > is frustrating, wait until you take on the online world. > Too bloody right. john probst, CTD bridgeclublive.com > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 29 19:31:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:31:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 laws References: Message-ID: <003f01c81a59$f546d290$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ At the Young Chelsea the club, as the RA for its >> own competitions, would possibly adopt the ACBL >> regulations for such a tournament if it still occurs. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Except that Law 80 says: > (c) for any other tournament or event the National > Bridge Organisation in whose territory the tournament > takes place. > > Thus the YC cannot be the RA for it's own competitions whilst Earl's > Court remains on English territory. > > It will be necessary for the EBU to assign RA powers to the YC and for > the YC to implement ACBL regulations under those delegated powers. > It would not be legal for the ACBL/French games at the YC to continue > offering masterpoints from the respective NAs were the EBU to refuse to > make such an assignment. The ACBL game and the FFB game are nothing to do with the YC. Cardinbrook Ltd rents tables to the YC; the Yanks and the Frogs (and even to me from time to time) and has no interest at all in what you do with the tables provided the equipment remains undamaged; thus sumo wrestling might not be an appropriate use of the equipment. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 19:58:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:58:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <6bnhj8$g83380@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <6bnhj8$g83380@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <2AA5BEE4-A30A-419E-841A-6CBCB688D80D@starpower.net> On Oct 29, 2007, at 12:31 PM, ton wrote: > This example is one where there is no legal problem relating to the > clubs > shown by the double. > As long as the legal call includes the information given by the > illegal call > the auction continues 'normally'. The problem in this example is > that when > the X promises clubs it now can be made without having the clubs > and partner > should be aware of that. Therefore we might need the safety belt. > (this > meaning that it also shows clubs sounds very old fashioned to me, I > played > it in the seventies that way) Exactly. On 10/15, addressing the posting of the new L27, I wrote, "It will work quite well, if perhaps in somewhat unexpected ways, in situations where the offender's hand meets the systemic requirements for the substituted call. I do, however, anticipate a whole new area of problematic jurisprudence arising from the cases in which it fails to do so while fully conforming to that subset of the requirements which were 'incorporated' in the insufficient bid, and expect such cases to be quite frequent, even typical." L27C1 has caused much consternation because it is radically different from the old law and introduces a new key concept ("incorporation"), but is quite straightforward and will cause far fewer problems than before once folks get used to it. It is L27C2, with the seeming familiarity of its language and resemblence to well-established law in other areas, that will cause trouble, ultimately requiring that "whole new area of jurisprudence" I predicted a couple of weeks ago, but so far this has not been addressed. This is what Ton sees and points out above. The key question will be whether a correction without penalty per L27C creates presumptive UI that the IBer's hand is likely to fail to meet any additional requirements for the replacement bid beyond those of the IB. This is the exact opposite of Reg's original concern: not whether the double helps to get to clubs when it's right, but whether the 1H IB helps to avoid getting to clubs when it's wrong. I don't think we want it to; ISTM the new law was devised to eliminate lead penalties for presumptively innocuous corrections so as to allow more innocuous corrections, not to replace them with alternative "penalties" in the form of L16 constraints. Those who are more concerned with not opening the door to sharp practice than with obviating the effects of innocent infractions may disagree. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 20:08:52 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty Message-ID: <47262FC4.7000909@nhcc.net> > On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Reg Busch wrote: >> 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. How, exactly, do we find that out? (In this example it seems highly likely, but in general I don't think it will be so obvious.) >> No problem if he now >> bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the >> agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and responding >> values, > From: Eric Landau > If the double shows at least four hearts and > responding values, L27C applies. If the double doesn't promise four > hearts, L27D applies; What of partnerships that haven't discussed the matter except to agree "normal negative doubles?" Come to think of it, I don't think my regular partner and I have ever discussed this question. Offhand I can't construct a double that wouldn't contain four hearts, but we don't have an explicit agreement on the subject. (And we have a _lot_ of agreements, far more than most partnerships do.) So C or D for us? And what for the pickup pair who agreed "normal 2/1" shortly after meeting at the partnership desk? From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 20:29:19 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:29:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: <4726348F.7040501@nhcc.net> > From: Gampas at aol.com > Grattan gave details of the full ruling, which can also be read at > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm [case 1] Thanks for quick response. > ...some mail servers garbled the presentation. Not the mail servers; the mail was sent in a format other than ASCII text. > The basis of the appeal was that there was a failure to alert the 3H bid, I see that now and won't comment on EBU alerting except to say that I've been wrong about it before. Frances Hinden pointed out an interesting aspect of the case: an AC can decide what is alertable. (Though Frances was involved, I think her comment is entirely proper.) The circumstances around the 2D bid are not clear to me, but apparently it was alerted, North asked, and the answer was "transfer" with no further information. If so, that seems clear MI to me, though it's a judgment matter whether the MI caused damage. I'm surprised the AC didn't consider this aspect. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 21:53:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:53:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <47262FC4.7000909@nhcc.net> References: <47262FC4.7000909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <26D5DA3E-FE84-45E7-8021-B0BC8BC40C19@starpower.net> On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Reg Busch wrote: >>> 1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. > > How, exactly, do we find that out? (In this example it seems highly > likely, but in general I don't think it will be so obvious.) > >>> No problem if he now >>> bids 2H. I would also allow him to replace it with a double if the >>> agreement is that the double shows at least four hearts and >>> responding >>> values, > >> From: Eric Landau >> If the double shows at least four hearts and >> responding values, L27C applies. If the double doesn't promise four >> hearts, L27D applies; > > What of partnerships that haven't discussed the matter except to agree > "normal negative doubles?" Come to think of it, I don't think my > regular partner and I have ever discussed this question. Offhand I > can't construct a double that wouldn't contain four hearts, but we > don't > have an explicit agreement on the subject. (And we have a _lot_ of > agreements, far more than most partnerships do.) So C or D for > us? And > what for the pickup pair who agreed "normal 2/1" shortly after meeting > at the partnership desk? What of any situation in which a ruling depends on the meaning of a call? There's nothing new here. Since the key question in Steve's case is whether double shows four hearts in his partnership, the TD will ask them. If they do not claim that it does, they will not be allowed to substitute a double without penalty per L27C. If they do claim that it does, they either will or (normally) won't offer addtional evidence beyond their unsupported word, and the TD either will or won't accept their assertion (presumably giving the NOS the benefit of any significant doubt) and apply L27C or D accordingly. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 29 23:03:37 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:03:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with an axe References: Message-ID: <002001c81a77$8ea33470$0100a8c0@stefanie> Paul Lamford wrote: Similarly, an auction 1C-(1H)-2C-(2H)-3C is not now alerted if 2NT would have shown a weaker 3C bid. This might well be on the convention card as "we play good-bad 2NT in many situations", but will the average player know which they are likely to be? All ethical pairs would have routinely alerted both bids here, and now should not do so. Another example is (2H) - Dble - (Pass) - 3C is again not alerted whether or not you are playing Lebensohl. Or (1NT) - Pass -(2H!) - Pass - (2S) - Pass - (Pass) - Double - (Pass) - 3D does not get alerted if you could have bid 2NT as two places to play. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is what the L&E C have produced, but I do not think that it is what they intended. I think that the Committee wanted to ensure that the 3H bid in the auction we have all seen many times was not alertable, and that they applied an over-thick brushstroke by changing a regulation that is key to the idea of full disclosure. What they should have done instead is go the licensing route. For those unfamiliar with the EBU, licensing goes as follows: A player devises a convention or treatment that falls foul of the permission level in force at local, county or national (wherever he intends to play) tournaments. So he submits his method to the L&E C, who decide whether or not his specific method should be allowed at the level in question, and often the answer is in the affirmative. Thus there are a number of pages in the Orange book devoted to a particular method that one pair play, or have since abandoned! Anyway, since there is a precedent, the L&E C should have kept the regulation that bids with inferences unknown to the opponents should be alerted, but made a specific exception for the 3H bid in question. Cheers Stefanie Rohan From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 29 23:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <55368260-D27A-4EEE-921F-C0BAE1ED3815@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It > > might be > > rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering > > to a > > duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be > > rational for a > > moderate player to attempt such a ploy. > > That you say this makes me wonder how you define "rational". The player having a reason for it. If you don't like the term "moderate" assume I'm talking about a player who wouldn't understand the squeeze if provided with explicit diagrams and a 15 minute lesson. If the new laws say we are required to impose a failing trump squeeze on such players because Hamman might play for a failing trump squeeze then I don't like the new laws. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 29 23:36:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <003f01c81a59$f546d290$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: "John Probst" wrote: > > Except that Law 80 says: > > (c) for any other tournament or event the National > > Bridge Organisation in whose territory the tournament > > takes place. > > > The ACBL game and the FFB game are nothing to do with the YC. It's not really relevant - *somebody* will have to get permission from the EBU for such games to take place. The entities which rent the tables are outside direct EBU control while the YC could be considered complicit in allow illegal bridge at their premises - which are in territory allocated to the EBU until the EBU (or WBF) say otherwise. Probst, or indeed I, could organise *non-masterpoint* bridge anywhere we want to as there is no requirement for to us to affiliate to any WBF member. It is only where clubs attempt to affiliate (e.g. by awarding MPs recognised by a WBF member) that the laws matter. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 01:09:46 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:09:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <4726348F.7040501@nhcc.net> References: <4726348F.7040501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710291709r509c67e8raa3c2b38bb568380@mail.gmail.com> On 30/10/2007, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Gampas at aol.com > > Grattan gave details of the full ruling, which can also be read at > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm > [case 1] > > Thanks for quick response. > > > ...some mail servers garbled the presentation. > > Not the mail servers; the mail was sent in a format other than ASCII text. > > > The basis of the appeal was that there was a failure to alert the 3H bid, > > I see that now and won't comment on EBU alerting except to say that I've > been wrong about it before. Frances Hinden pointed out an interesting > aspect of the case: an AC can decide what is alertable. (Though Frances > was involved, I think her comment is entirely proper.) > The appeal committee do not have this right. If they are over-ruling a director on a point of law or regulation they can only recommend. The director of course is bound by the announced regulations. Wayne From Gampas at aol.com Tue Oct 30 01:16:43 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:16:43 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 30/10/2007 00:10:07 GMT Standard Time, wjburrows at gmail.com writes: >The appeal committee do not have this right. If they are over-ruling >a director on a point of law or regulation they can only recommend. >The director of course is bound by the announced regulations. I cannot agree. The AC overruled the director on the interpretation of the law. The director decided the 3H bid was not alertable because its meaning was not affected enough by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to expect. The AC ruled that it was (a bridge judgement evaluating something required to be evaluated by the law). The L&EC decided that the degree of unexpectedness was insufficient (from their minutes, and again a bridge judgement required by the laws). Surely all these decisions are within the remit of the respective people or groups. Paul From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 00:53:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:53:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00bf01c81a8b$db7ba930$0dca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Richard Hills: >> >>For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing >>between the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal". > > I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word > "convention" appears in the new Law 40B. What are we > supposed to deduce from the lack of a definition? > +=+ "The Secretary was invited to state what difficulty he had with the present definition of convention. (---------------- omissis ---------------------) Mr Martel and others agreed that the current definition is flawed but felt that the suggested definition may introduce other problems. It was concluded that more thought needs to be given to the subject . It may be a matter to be deferred until the next major revision." [WBFLC minute, Jan 11th, 2000] In the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 the word 'convention' appears only in a default stipulation that enwraps use of it in regulation, should it persist, into the Law 40B provisions for 'special partnership understandings'. It is discarded.and not used otherwise in the Laws, thus ridding the drafting sub- committee of the onus of any further definition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 30 01:50:00 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:50:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DA73283-E746-44D8-8C6A-C55DA138DBE0@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> That you say this makes me wonder how you define "rational". > > The player having a reason for it. If you don't like the term > "moderate" > assume I'm talking about a player who wouldn't understand the > squeeze if > provided with explicit diagrams and a 15 minute lesson. > > If the new laws say we are required to impose a failing trump > squeeze on > such players because Hamman might play for a failing trump squeeze > then I > don't like the new laws. The new law says that if it's irrational for Hamman to play for a failing trump squeeze, it's irrational for a moderate player to do so. And vice versa, if it's irrational for the moderate, it's irrational for Hamman. If you insist on approaching from the other direction (what's rational, a word not in the law), then consider that if it's rational for one player to do something, it's rational for every player to do it - but that doesn't matter, because we aren't looking at rational plays, we're looking at irrational ones. I have vague recollections of discussing "converse", "obverse" and "reverse" and possibly other similar words in elementary logic classes many years ago, but I confess which means what, and how the truth value of one affects the truth value of another, escapes me now - and I think it may have escaped you too. :-) From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 02:20:54 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:20:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> On 30/10/2007, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 30/10/2007 00:10:07 GMT Standard Time, > wjburrows at gmail.com writes: > > >The appeal committee do not have this right. If they are over-ruling > >a director on a point of law or regulation they can only recommend. > >The director of course is bound by the announced regulations. > > I cannot agree. The AC overruled the director on the interpretation of the > law. The director decided the 3H bid was not alertable because its meaning was > not affected enough by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to > expect. The AC ruled that it was (a bridge judgement evaluating something required > to be evaluated by the law). The L&EC decided that the degree of > unexpectedness was insufficient (from their minutes, and again a bridge judgement > required by the laws). Surely all these decisions are within the remit of the > respective people or groups. > > Paul > This is what the laws say: "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling." L93B To me that says that an appeal committee have no authority to interpret laws. Certainly not to base their ruling on their interpretation. All they can do is recommend that the director changes. Wayne From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 03:56:47 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:56:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <47269D6F.8020902@ntlworld.com> [nige1] [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). [Ed Reppert] Ever heard of "not invented here" syndrome, Nigel? [nige2] Yes Ed. Among other one-line put-downs like ... "Tried before -- didn't work". "Its effectively the same as what we do now" "It ain't broke..". But more often "It's crap" (no reason given). And many "arguments" ad hominem e.g "Rueful rabbit" "Walter the walrus" (I quite like that one) "Legal critics must be on an ego-trip". :( OK there may be a vestige of truth in the last :) [nige1] [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and solves problems mentioned in recent threads). [Ed] I don't think so. If it avoids some UI, it certainly creates other UI. [nige2] When opponents alert, *inadvertent* unauthorised information is inevitable -- unless an explanation is requested... (a) *all* of the time or (b) *none* of the time or (c) *randomly* but that is hard to do and harder to police. The first two options consume more time but are roughly equivalent to (a) Announcing *all* alertable calls and (b) Switching *off* announcements. With alerts, opportunities for *deliberate* UI abound. Have you noticed that, whenever an expert opponent asks about a particular suit bid, he always has interest in a *different* suit? Announcing, saves the time waiting for and verbalising a question as well as eliminating associated UI. I wonder if Ed can be explicit about the *additional* UI that he thinks announcing would create. [nige1] [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition matches for TV, and so on. [Ed] There is no standard system, even in places which act as if there is. Besides, SAYC isn't a system, it's a hodgepodge of conventions. If somebody came along and tried to impose a "standard system", whoever did it and whatever it was, players would just ignore them. [nige2] A standard system can be any well-defined, fairly complete, consistent set of playable methods that legislators specify as standard. It is possible that some players would ignore disclosure rules based on such a standard. But, Ed, please compare like with like. Currently, in the EBU, few players admit to having read the Orange book. A few years ago, at a Brighton congress post-mortem lecture, the Editor of the British Bridge Magazine boasted that he had never read the Orange Book and the large audience erupted in near unanimous agreement and approval. Most players do ignore it. On the rare occasions, when somebody does take the trouble to check up, even experts get caught in flagrant breach of its regulations. I hope that there will be less resistance to learning a *playable* standard system than to learning the unplayable hodgepodge implicit in the alerting regulations of many countries. [nige1] [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that partner can explain it, himself. [Ed] Which act in itself conveys the UI that you're unsure. [nige2] UI is inevitable, when you are asked to disclose some aspect of your system about which you are unsure. Partner, however, is expected to avoid using it. The intention of Richard's suggestion isn't to reduce UI. I is meant to encourage *disclosure*. If it were law, it would hardly ever be invoked, because player's memories would undergo a sudden miraculous improvement :) [nige1] Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. [Ed] Do you have any evidence for that last supposition, Nigel? [Nige2] I would be grateful to the WBF or any jurisdiction that systematically polled player's and ex-player's views. It would be easy for them to do. In the meantime I can cite only a lifetime's experience of playing and teaching bridge. A typical recent anecdote: A delightful young French couple, welcomed to Reading Bridge club, enjoyed several tournaments until they failed to alert a popular method, not alertable in France. The complex ruling was that their opponents were damaged but the immigrants disagreed. They never came back. [Ed] On the BBO forums, people often ask "is this-or-that alertable/legal/ ethical?" In fact, online bridge quite often does not follow the laws, and regulations are nebulous, at best. Why is this so? I think there are several reasons, but the big one seems to be that most players don't care. They just want to play something resembling bridge. So online TDs, who are also SOs, just fake it most of the time. I've come to the conclusion that the only correct answer to "is this-or-that alertable/legal/ethical?" in online bridge is "Ask the person who set up your game for you." If you think getting the changes you want implemented in f2f bridge is frustrating, wait until you take on the online world. [nige2] There are problems with on-line bridge. *Cheating* is hard to police; and it has suffers (and benefits) from a lots of inexperienced players: - You are an *expert* if you learnt to play this afternoon :) - If you learnt this morning, you are now *world class* :) :) Online bridge law, however, is fairer and simpler to understand than f2f. IMO, online law years in advance of f2f law for which it has obvious lessons, at all levels from expert match viewgraphs to tournaments for beginners. Among the reasons for this are... (i) Opportunity for mechanical error is curtailed (ii) Disclosure is simpler (even automatic in some systems) and partner can't see what you tell opponents. (iii) Claim law is simpler and fairer. (iv) There is less scope for subjective director judgement. Hence rulings are more consistent and equitable (in the dictionary sense of that word). Justice is more likely to be done and seen to be done. Thank you, Ed, for your thoughtful feed-back :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 04:01:45 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:01:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] On-line law reform. In-Reply-To: <002401c81a59$10165650$0701a8c0@john> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com><200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com><4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> <002401c81a59$10165650$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <47269E99.6070802@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] If you think getting the changes you want implemented in f2f bridge is frustrating, wait until you take on the online world. [John Probst, CTD bridgeclublive.com] Too bloody right. [nige1] Please tell us more John. What changes would you advocate? Is the resistance political or computational? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 04:13:40 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <47262FC4.7000909@nhcc.net> References: <47262FC4.7000909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4726A164.1010502@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] What of partnerships that haven't discussed the matter except to agree "normal negative doubles?" Come to think of it, I don't think my regular partner and I have ever discussed this question. Offhand I can't construct a double that wouldn't contain four hearts... [Nige1] S:xx H:Axx D:Axxxx C:xxx 1C (1S) ?? From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 30 09:08:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:08:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c81a4a$b40333f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001101c81a4a$b40333f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4726E66A.5020505@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Sven wrote: >>> Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister >>> champion. >> I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might be >> rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a >> duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for a >> moderate player to attempt such a ploy. > > True, but mister champion must never be permitted to "hide" behind his > "class of player" and have a claim accepted when he forgot to mention some > essential aspect of the claim in his statement. > > If he forgets to mention something it is either because he (for the moment) > is unaware of it or because it is so trivial that even mister beginner would > not miss it. > No Sven, this is manifestly untrue. Let me try with an example. If I claim with AQJ opposite KT32 for four tricks, do you expect me to say that I will overtake the Jack with the King? No, because that would be irrational. Forgetting to mention this is not proof that I am unaware of it. Yet would you call such a play automatic for a beginner? Then I urge you to assist in some beginners' classes again. I think this is all again a case of "we agree on each and every single case at the table, but we want to express this differently". So let's stop this discussion. > Claiming for the purpose of having the Director play out the hand as a > rested player of his master class would do so that he can avoid silly > mistakes due to his fatigue is unacceptable. > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 30 09:18:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> Nigel, you look at all five of my points and agree with them, while writing that you disagree: Let's see: Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > [A] The WBFLC can supply a complete set of default "laws" that local > jurisdictions are free to adapt to local "regulations". For example a > system card is more useful to those most in need of it -- strangers > and foreigners -- if the layout is universal. These can be more > detailed for high level competition but keep the same pattern > including a space at the front for "aspects opponents should note"). > > [Heman De Wael] > Local organisations are free to adopt the WBF SC. So [A] is actually > already in the "laws". > > [nige2] > I don't think so, Herman. Currently, most jurisdictions define a card > format or adopt somebody else's. The WBFLC don't define the WBF card > as an official default and exert no local pressure to adopt it. Global > defaults would save palaver for non-chauvinist jurisdictions. System > card law is just one example for which global defaults would encourage > a level playing field. Another is Bidding boxes, especially the use of > the the Stop card. Again, jurisdiction would be free to over-ride such > rules e.g. to use written bidding. > Your initial point is that the WBF should provide a standard SC, I merely said that it has already done so. What the NBOs do with it is another matter, but even now they could allow it's use. in fact, many do so. > [nige1] > [B] A simple universal basis for such laws is "announcements", rather > than "alerts" (You *explain* partner's bids rather than *alert* them. > This speeds up the game, avoids some unauthorised information, and > solves problems mentioned in recent threads). > > [Herman] > Announcements are only interesting for parts of a system that are > 50/50 distributed around the field. It would be impossible to get the > French to agree to announcing 1NT ranges. "15-17" would be very > boring. So this does not solve any international problem, any more > than an international alert policy will work. > > [nige2] > The suggestion is that you announce *instead* of alerting. In general, > if it's not now alertable then it need not be announced. (but see > proposal D). > But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting, I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with alerting are also present with announcing. And then some. > [nige1] > [C] If you want to avoid the UI from opponent's announcements (or from > alerts -- if the announcement idea is rejected), then you should be > allowed to "switch them off" until after the auction is finished. > > > [Herman] > And how do you draw the difference between a player who has "switched > off" and still performs the suggested action (with LAs present) and > the player who has tuned in and performs that same action quite > deliberatly and unethically? > > [nige2] > Why try to read somebody'[s mind? Either is UI. And partner must treat > it accordingly. Persistent infractions lead to procedural penalties. > So you actually agree with me that "switching off" does not work. If the player is still restricted by L16, what does "switching off" mean? > [nige1] > [D] Even more simple: the default laws can specify that disclosure be > from a *standard* system e.g. SAYC. This skirts round current problems > of defining "natural" "artificia1" "conventional" "special agreement" > "unexpected" and so on. A dissenting local RA can still over-ride the > global standard with its own home-grown "standard" (such as the > hotch-potch system implicitly defined in the EBU Orange Book). A > global standard is ideal for Scratch-partnerships, Individual > competition, Teaching beginners, "No-fear" competition, Exhibition > matches for TV, and so on. > > [Herman] > And what is the standard system in France? in Poland? would you prefer > all French pairs to alert 1Cl, or all Polish ones? or both? > > [nige2] > I would prefer that we all conform to the Global standard (perhaps > SAYC or WBF standard). A dissenting RA can substitute a local standard > (Polish club, Leghorn Diamond, Hanoi Heart or whatever). The basic > disclosure rules would be unaffected. > But isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Is not every single alert procedure in the world based on some "standard" system? Some countries have well-written out standards, so they can simply refer to that standard; other countries need to write an alert procedure from scratch - but does not that define a standard system. So what have you introduced that is new? > [nige1] > [E] I also like *Richard's Rule* :) If you're unsure of the systemic > meaning of partner's call, you offer to leave the table so that > partner can explain it, himself. > > [Herman[ > Creating UI of a different nature, but just as big. If partner next > makes an "impossible" call, partner knows it's because of > misunderstanding and not because of an "impossible" hand. Just as much > without hearing the guess as with it. > > [nige2] > UI is inevitable, when you are asked to disclose some aspect of your > system about which you are unsure (even using the De Wael protocol). > Partner is just expected to avoid using it. Richard's suggestion is > meant to encourage *disclosure*. If it were law, it would hardly ever > be invoked, because player's memories would undergo a sudden > miraculous improvement :) > This is the same old discussion - do the lawmakers consider it worse to allow MI to continue to exist, or is it worse for UI to be created. You know my opinion. > [nige1] > Judging from the hostile reaction to such proposals they may be (at > best) a bit ahead of their time; but without some such rule > simplification, would-be players may continue to be deterred. > > [Herman] > I don't even consider these five points to be simplifications - quite > the contrary! > > [nige2] > Arguably, players would find them simple logical and fair -- much > easier to understand than current disclosure laws and regulations. I > value Herman's opinions, however, and thank him for taking the time to > criticise these proposals. > Since you have not basically altered anything, it is futile to discuss whether players would prefer the old words or your new ones. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 09:38:45 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:38:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5DA73283-E746-44D8-8C6A-C55DA138DBE0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002501c81ad8$0e827d30$9ac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The new law says that if it's irrational for Hamman to play for a > failing trump squeeze, it's irrational for a moderate player to do > so. And vice versa, if it's irrational for the moderate, it's > irrational for Hamman. < +=+ You will have read Kojak on the subject. He is right that the word 'irrational' has been corrupted, but blml has only inherited the corruption - the foul deed was done before blml ever saw the light of day. We have to detach the idea of irrationality from the idea that what is irrational in one player is merely inferior in another. Irrationality has to do with what is conceptually absurd*, as for example refusing a finesse for the contract when the next player has already shown out. The corruption of the word lies in using it in place of some such phrase as 'unbelievably inferior', something that can be so for one player and not for another. On a level playing field a player is not entitled to the protection that an action would be 'irrational' for him but merely 'inferior' in another. For both it is 'inferior' and the comparison of the inferiority simply a matter of degree (unless it is truly irrational for both of them). If it were desirable otherwise the law would need to find a different expression. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * crackpot, nonsensical. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 09:45:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:45:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > This is what the laws say: > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise > all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, > except that the committee may not overrule the Director > on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his > disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend > to the Director that he change his ruling." L93B > > To me that says that an appeal committee has no authority > to interpret laws. Certainly not to base their ruling on their > interpretation. All they can do is recommend that the > director changes. > +=+ If the regulation is explicit I agree with that. But if the Director is required to use bridge judgement to determine whether the regulation applies the AC is entitled to enter its own bridge judgement in place of the Director's. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 30 10:46:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:46:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4726E66A.5020505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c81ad9$cfcc5780$6500a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > >> Sven wrote: > >>> Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister > >>> champion. > >> I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might > be > >> rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a > >> duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for > a > >> moderate player to attempt such a ploy. > > > > True, but mister champion must never be permitted to "hide" behind his > > "class of player" and have a claim accepted when he forgot to mention > some > > essential aspect of the claim in his statement. > > > > If he forgets to mention something it is either because he (for the > moment) > > is unaware of it or because it is so trivial that even mister beginner > would > > not miss it. > > > > No Sven, this is manifestly untrue. Let me try with an example. > > If I claim with AQJ opposite KT32 for four tricks, do you expect me to > say that I will overtake the Jack with the King? No, because that > would be irrational. Forgetting to mention this is not proof that I am > unaware of it. This is a borderline case, but YES, I would absolutely expect you (and also Helgemo/Helness) to just show that this detail was not overlooked. If the follow-up on the claim reveals that the player indeed was aware of the detail I shall of course accept it, but if it gives the impression that "oh yes, I have to overtake" I come pretty close to ruling that he might have erred. That is precisely the difference between playing the cards yourself and expecting the Director to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for you. Sven > Yet would you call such a play automatic for a beginner? I expect any experienced player to see such traps and to know the importance of showing that he has seen them, particularly when he is exhausted and can easily make the silliest errors. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 30 13:07:59 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen><2b1e598b0710280913p38c5081bwbce5fce8d153ea5d@mail.gmail.com> <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00f701c81aed$836e62c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Typically, a player benefits from such infractions many times, before, > eventually, he cheerfully accepts an adverse ruling. It will normally > accord with modern "Equity" law: it will provide partial redress to > his victims for this *one occasion* but leave the player with a > handsome overall profit (and his victims with a large long-term loss). > If he is sensible, he will then avoid this ploy for the remainder of > the competition. But he will not be deterred from rationalising and > resuming such profitable bad habits at a later date. If he needs any > justification he can (mis?) interpret 40B3 :) > I don't understand how a player can profit from this manoeuvre. His partner will have to know the meaning of the opponent's bid before he can even know whether to alert the bid of the player in question. So the partner will know that the bid means whatever it should mean over the opponent's explained bid. I can speak with authority on this subject, because my most frequent partner has a habit of not noticing opponents' alerts. So I have been in this position several times, and have never profited. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 14:06:16 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:06:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> [Herman] Nigel, you look at all five of my points and agree with them, while writing that you disagree: Let's see: [nige3] I disagree with all Herman's main points :( [Heman De Wael] Local organisations are free to adopt the WBF SC. So [A] [The WBFLC specifying a default card layouts] is actually already in the "laws". Your initial point is that the WBF should provide a standard SC, I merely said that it has already done so. What the NBOs do with it is another matter, but even now they could allow it's use. in fact, many do so. [nige3] There is a difference between [A] The *WBF* supplying a card-format for international competition under its auspices -- without pressure for adoption by local jurisdictions) and [B] The *WBFLC* law-book *specifying* card layouts -- for different levels of competition -- not just international play -- all conforming to the same overall pattern. In the former case, each local jurisdiction must make a local decision with international competition practice just one option. In the latter, the local jurisdiction adopts global standards *by default*. To opt out of the mainstream, it must take action. "System card" law is just one example. Arguably there should be default legislation about bidding boxes and so on. The main practical differences is that there would be official pressure (short of compulsion) for a level global playing-field. [Herman] But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting, I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with alerting are also present with announcing. And then some. [nige3] There are fewer UI problems with announcing. Alerts are prone to *inadvertent* unauthorised information -- unless an explanation is *always* or *never* requested. Those alternatives are roughly equivalent to "announcing *all* alertable calls" and "switching *off* announcements". In current practice, however, players ask about *selected* alerts, which creates *inevitable* UI. Sometimes this seems to be exploited *deliberately*. Have you noticed that, whenever an expert opponent asks about a particular suit bid, he *never* wants the lead of that suit? Announcing, *saves time* waiting for and verbalising a question. It also *eliminates associated UI*. [Herman] So you actually agree with me that "switching off" does not work. If the player is still restricted by L16, what does "switching off" mean? [nige1] "Switching off" does work! In the past, when "Switching off" was allowed, it worked a treat. We *always* asked opponents not to alert and it was worth a top or two per session to us. You can appreciate why when you study what happens, nowadays, in jurisdictions that forbid alerting above 3N. Without the UI from alerts, some high level auctions, spiral out of control. Finally, normal UI laws dealt well with the case where a player alerts when forbidden to do so. [nige2] I would prefer that we all conform to the Global standard (perhaps SAYC or WBF standard). A dissenting RA can substitute a local standard (Polish club, Leghorn Diamond, Hanoi Heart or whatever). The basic disclosure rules would be unaffected. {Herman] But isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Is not every single alert procedure in the world based on some "standard" system? Some countries have well-written out standards, so they can simply refer to that standard; other countries need to write an alert procedure from scratch - but does not that define a standard system. So what have you introduced that is new? [nige1] Herman is the first person to agree that local Alert regulations (like the Orange book) implicitly define a local standard system. Thank you Herman. Unfortunately the "implicit standard" is an incomplete unplayable hodgepodge, hence more difficult to learn than a playable standard. Arguably, the WBFLC could *simplify* and *complete* its disclosure laws if it specified a *global* standard system. Basically: *you disclose the meaning of a call if is non-standard* No longer would the WBFLC need to wrestle with definitions of "natural", "conventional", and so on. Even if a local jurisdiction opted for a local standard system, it could still scrap all its local alerting regulations :) Imagine the environmental savings in terms of Amazon rain-forests. [Herman] This is the same old discussion - do the lawmakers consider it worse to allow MI to continue to exist, or is it worse for UI to be created. You know my opinion. [nige1] Yes :) [Herman] Since you have not basically altered anything, it is futile to discuss whether players would prefer the old words or your new ones. [nige1] It may well be futile but, IMO, for other reasons :( From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 30 14:07:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:07:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:20 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 30/10/2007, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated 30/10/2007 00:10:07 GMT Standard Time, >> wjburrows at gmail.com writes: >> >>> The appeal committee do not have this right. If they are over- >>> ruling >>> a director on a point of law or regulation they can only recommend. >>> The director of course is bound by the announced regulations. >> >> I cannot agree. The AC overruled the director on the >> interpretation of the >> law. The director decided the 3H bid was not alertable because its >> meaning was >> not affected enough by other agreements the opponents were >> unlikely to >> expect. The AC ruled that it was (a bridge judgement evaluating >> something required >> to be evaluated by the law). The L&EC decided that the degree of >> unexpectedness was insufficient (from their minutes, and again a >> bridge judgement >> required by the laws). Surely all these decisions are within the >> remit of the >> respective people or groups. > > This is what the laws say: > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may > not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on > exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to > the Director that he change his ruling." L93B > > To me that says that an appeal committee have no authority to > interpret laws. Certainly not to base their ruling on their > interpretation. All they can do is recommend that the director > changes. I agree with Paul here. The regulations do not specifically address the 3H bid in question. They require an alert if "its meaning was [] affected enough by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to expect". The AC didn't overrule or interpret that regulation. They ruled on whether this specific bid met the regulation's "unlikely to expect" criterion, and decided that it did not. That's a pure "bridge judgment", and well within the determinative powers of an AC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 30 14:41:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> <47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Guthrie wrote: > {Herman] > But isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Is not every single > alert procedure in the world based on some "standard" system? Some > countries have well-written out standards, so they can simply refer to > that standard; other countries need to write an alert procedure from > scratch - but does not that define a standard system. So what have you > introduced that is new? > > [nige1] > Herman is the first person to agree that local Alert regulations (like > the Orange book) implicitly define a local standard system. Thank you > Herman. Unfortunately the "implicit standard" is an incomplete > unplayable hodgepodge, hence more difficult to learn than a playable > standard. Herman is the first (only) person to agree because the notion that local alert regulations implicitly define a local standard system is absolute nonsense. It is nothing more than a restatement of the gross canard that any given call on any given auction must have exactly one unalertable meaning, which is patently absurd. A sensible alert protocol ideally requires alerts only for calls whose meanings are unusual or unexpected. In the ACBL, for example, the auction 1NT-P-3C is commonly played as any of "must be passed", invitational to 3NT, or a game-forcing slam try. None of these meanings are unusual or unexpected, and none of them require an alert. If Nigel and Herman were making sense, 3C in the "local standard system" implicitly defined by the ACBL alert procedure would be a game-invitational slam try that must be passed. Harumph. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 30 14:45:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:45:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c81ad9$cfcc5780$6500a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c81ad9$cfcc5780$6500a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4727357A.9070802@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >>>> Sven wrote: >>>>> Only what is irrational for mister beginner is irrational for mister >>>>> champion. >>>> I doubt this simply because the reverse is simply not true. It might >> be >>>> rational for a world champion to try a (failing) squeeze catering to a >>>> duck instead of repeating a finesse but it would never be rational for >> a >>>> moderate player to attempt such a ploy. >>> True, but mister champion must never be permitted to "hide" behind his >>> "class of player" and have a claim accepted when he forgot to mention >> some >>> essential aspect of the claim in his statement. >>> >>> If he forgets to mention something it is either because he (for the >> moment) >>> is unaware of it or because it is so trivial that even mister beginner >> would >>> not miss it. >>> >> No Sven, this is manifestly untrue. Let me try with an example. >> >> If I claim with AQJ opposite KT32 for four tricks, do you expect me to >> say that I will overtake the Jack with the King? No, because that >> would be irrational. Forgetting to mention this is not proof that I am I notice a missing negative - it would be irrational not to do it. >> unaware of it. > > This is a borderline case, but YES, I would absolutely expect you (and also > Helgemo/Helness) to just show that this detail was not overlooked. > Your expectations of what should happen in a claim statement are different from mine then. If, in Norway, even Helgemo woud mention this, then, in Norway, for Sven Pran not to mention this would be an indication that he had forgotten. But considering that, in Belgium, no-one would mention this "obvious" thing (perhaps wrongly so), it would, in Belgium, for Herman De Wael not mentioning this not be an indication that he had forgotten (perhaps wrongly so). What we are talking about is however the laws, not the local habits. If Helgemo forgets to mention this, and he has a better than average reason for omitting to do it (I was being interrupted even before I could explain everything, f.i.), then should we consider such an obvious play as "irrational not to take it"? I think we should. For Helgemo, Herman, and Sven, but perhaps not for a simple beginner. > If the follow-up on the claim reveals that the player indeed was aware of > the detail I shall of course accept it, but if it gives the impression that > "oh yes, I have to overtake" I come pretty close to ruling that he might > have erred. > Indeed, that comes close to what I was saying too. The Belgian expert who did not say it will say "of course I overtake, who do you take me for, a beginner?". > That is precisely the difference between playing the cards yourself and > expecting the Director to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for you. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 15:07:48 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:07:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <00f701c81aed$836e62c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0710241407g293a182mb63807ab1f9b1044@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0710261543t4a7e7d76p1de818257898b6ad@mail.gmail.com> <003601c818ab$a5fe2670$599e87d9@Hellen><2b1e598b0710280913p38c5081bwbce5fce8d153ea5d@mail.gmail.com> <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <00f701c81aed$836e62c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47273AB4.4070409@ntlworld.com> [Stephanie Rohan] I don't understand how a player can profit from this manoeuvre. His partner will have to know the meaning of the opponent's bid before he can even know whether to alert the bid of the player in question. So the partner will know that the bid means whatever it should mean over the opponent's explained bid. I can speak with authority on this subject, because my most frequent partner has a habit of not noticing opponents' alerts. So I have been in this position several times, and have never profited. [nige2] Stephanie is right :) My argument was woolly :( Partner's failure to ask may *sometimes* be an attempt to convey unauthorised information. I now accept, however, that he *often* already knows the meaning of the alerted call. Also, failure to ask is *sometimes* a genuine oversight. Here, a profitable infraction normally depends on collusion: You need what amounts to a concealed partnership understanding. In practice, however, I suspect that this may be a common ploy, rarely punished. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 30 16:23:34 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:23:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> <47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47274C76.5040103@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] Herman is the first (only) person to agree because the notion that local alert regulations implicitly define a local standard system is absolute nonsense. It is nothing more than a restatement of the gross canard that any given call on any given auction must have exactly one unalertable meaning, which is patently absurd. A sensible alert protocol ideally requires alerts only for calls whose meanings are unusual or unexpected. In the ACBL, for example, the auction 1NT-P-3C is commonly played as any of "must be passed", invitational to 3NT, or a game-forcing slam try. None of these meanings are unusual or unexpected, and none of them require an alert. If Nigel and Herman were making sense, 3C in the "local standard system" implicitly defined by the ACBL alert procedure would be a game-invitational slam try that must be passed. Harumph. [nige1] Gross canard? :( Why a duck? :) Why do so many BLMLers accuse others of lying :( I regard it as a *tautology* that alert regulations implicitly define a system. I've admitted before, that such an implicit system definition is often an *incomplete* hodge-podge. What Eric seems to regard as a virtue of current local alert regulations, to me seems a flaw. Take Eric's example... Suppose under ACBL juridiction, opponents auction starts 1N-3C. I hold a good hand and want to compete over a weaker option. I have to ask or examine opponent's card. Thus I must tip my hand to opponents :( and convey unauthorised information to partner :( If, instead, there is a more coherent and complete standard system, the 3C call will have *one* common standard meaning :) Then, whenever the auction is neither alerted nor announced, I know what the call means, *without having to ask* :) OK it's obvious. But still worth emphasising. And I still maintain that it makes legal sense :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 30 16:27:23 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:27:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <014901c81b09$5ec5dc20$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau wrote: > I agree with Paul here. The regulations do not specifically address > the 3H bid in question. They require an alert if "its meaning was [] > affected enough by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to > expect". The AC didn't overrule or interpret that regulation. They > ruled on whether this specific bid met the regulation's "unlikely to > expect" criterion, and decided that it did not. That's a pure > "bridge judgment", and well within the determinative powers of an AC. Actually, the AC decided that the "unexpected" criterion was met. The L&E C decided later to take another look at the situation, and decided that the bid was not unexpected enough to need an alert, and that in fact no bids whose meaning are affected by other parts of one's system need to be alerted. From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 20:06:45 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:06:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> <002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710301206u4667353l80a439af9c74942b@mail.gmail.com> On 30/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ****************************************** > "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish > are one another's works." > ~ Jacques Martin Barzun. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > > > > This is what the laws say: > > > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise > > all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, > > except that the committee may not overrule the Director > > on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his > > disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend > > to the Director that he change his ruling." L93B > > > > To me that says that an appeal committee has no authority > > to interpret laws. Certainly not to base their ruling on their > > interpretation. All they can do is recommend that the > > director changes. > > > +=+ If the regulation is explicit I agree with that. But if the > Director is required to use bridge judgement to determine > whether the regulation applies the AC is entitled to enter > its own bridge judgement in place of the Director's. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Is there a law that backs up this view? The directors powers are clearly layed out: "to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." L81C5 and as far as I can see the appeal committee cannot over-rule the director on a point of law or regulation: "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling." L93B There is no condition that this only applies to laws and regulations that are explicit. Wayne From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 30 22:58:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:58:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] On-line law reform. References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com><200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com><4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com><002401c81a59$10165650$0701a8c0@john> <47269E99.6070802@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003601c81b40$0c13a4d0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:01 AM Subject: [blml] On-line law reform. > [Ed Reppert] > If you think getting the changes you want implemented in f2f bridge > is frustrating, wait until you take on the online world. > > [John Probst, CTD bridgeclublive.com] > Too bloody right. > > [nige1] > Please tell us more John. What changes would you advocate? Is the > resistance political or computational? I think it's a political problem. On-line sites can have 4 players from 4 different zones at one table. there is NO standard system in such cases. BridgeClubLive uses WBF alerting for this reason. ... and my experience of WBF alerting is that it's way better than EBU or ACBL alerting. We had a lot of resistance when we went this route initially, but a couple of years on it works well. 4 players from a single zone tend to use that zone's alerting, and otherwise we use WBF. It's clean and we get very few MI problems. But we have "not invented here" syndrome with self-interested parties wishing to maintain their power base, and so we get ever more complex alerting procedures in NBOs. Hope that clarifies it. As for updating the on-line laws; I'm happy to put the new words into the existing text and pass it back to Grattan to take to the WBFLC if he so desires. Any other changes would be stupid and futile. The job should be done before 1 Jan 08 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 31 01:02:11 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:02:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] On-line law reform. In-Reply-To: <003601c81b40$0c13a4d0$0701a8c0@john> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com><200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com><4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com><002401c81a59$10165650$0701a8c0@john> <47269E99.6070802@ntlworld.com> <003601c81b40$0c13a4d0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4727C603.7070308@ntlworld.com> [John Probst] I think it's a political problem. On-line sites can have 4 players from 4 different zones at one table. there is NO standard system in such cases. BridgeClubLive uses WBF alerting for this reason. ... and my experience of WBF alerting is that it's way better than EBU or ACBL alerting. We had a lot of resistance when we went this route initially, but a couple of years on it works well. 4 players from a single zone tend to use that zone's alerting, and otherwise we use WBF. It's clean and we get very few MI problems. But we have "not invented here" syndrome with self-interested parties wishing to maintain their power base, and so we get ever more complex alerting procedures in NBOs. Hope that clarifies it. As for updating the on-line laws; I'm happy to put the new words into the existing text and pass it back to Grattan to take to the WBFLC if he so desires. Any other changes would be stupid and futile. The job should be done before 1 Jan 08 [nige1] Paul Gipson reports that Scotland has adopted WBF alerting rules and they seem to be working well, causing problems only to visitors from the deep South. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 31 03:29:32 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:29:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com><002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710301206u4667353l80a439af9c74942b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006701c81b65$f0271880$27cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may > not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on > exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to > the Director that he change his ruling." L93B > > There is no condition that this only applies to laws and regulations > that are explicit. > +=+ My view is that if, for example, the alerting regulation says "alert any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning", the AC cannot overrule the Director when he states that an alert is required of any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning. However, if he then goes on to say "and the meaning of this call is potentially unexpected" then, unless he can point to a supportive expansion of the regulation, he is exercising bridge judgement in asserting that the call is such a call. He is not now stating the regulation but is expressing an opinion, a bridge judgement, as to the application of the regulation. In this latter area of bridge judgement the AC is not prohibited, in my reading of the law, from replacing the Director's bridge judgement with its own. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 03:56:44 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:56:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <006701c81b65$f0271880$27cf403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com> <002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710301206u4667353l80a439af9c74942b@mail.gmail.com> <006701c81b65$f0271880$27cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710301956h6681f64dse67c9781997cbea0@mail.gmail.com> On 31/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ****************************************** > "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish > are one another's works." > ~ Jacques Martin Barzun. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > > > > > > "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers > > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may > > not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on > > exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to > > the Director that he change his ruling." L93B > > > > There is no condition that this only applies to laws and regulations > > that are explicit. > > > +=+ My view is that if, for example, the alerting regulation says > "alert any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning", the > AC cannot overrule the Director when he states that an alert is > required of any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning. > However, if he then goes on to say "and the meaning of this call is > potentially unexpected" then, unless he can point to a supportive > expansion of the regulation, he is exercising bridge judgement in > asserting that the call is such a call. He is not now stating the > regulation but is expressing an opinion, a bridge judgement, as > to the application of the regulation. In this latter area of bridge > judgement the AC is not prohibited, in my reading of the law, > from replacing the Director's bridge judgement with its own. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You did not answer the question. Is there a law that states this view? I know it is your opinion. To me the law seems to give the sole power of interpreting regulations to the director. And further states that the appeal committee cannot over-rule the director on a point of law. I would take that to mean that the director's interpretation of the law cannot be over-ruled. Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 30 17:45:07 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:45:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com><4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be> <47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000a01c81ba1$802ff3d0$069b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file > > [Herman] > But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting, > I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with > alerting are also present with announcing. And then some. > +=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-) From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 30 17:49:28 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:49:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <4725E235.7020504@skynet.be> <47261D2C.3080702@ntlworld.com> <4726E8DE.9090601@skynet.be><47272C48.6090106@ntlworld.com> <47274C76.5040103@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000b01c81ba1$8120bc70$069b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > > [nige1] > Gross canard? :( Why a duck? :) > +=+ To rectify the count, although I am unaware how his need for rectification arose. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 31 11:13:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:13:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <2a1c3a560710291820v1b81f842tb4e0ee91542e1136@mail.gmail.com><002601c81ad8$0fa55250$9ac8403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560710301206u4667353l80a439af9c74942b@mail.gmail.com><006701c81b65$f0271880$27cf403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710301956h6681f64dse67c9781997cbea0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003b01c81ba7$22a360c0$069b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A finished product is one that has already seen its better days." {Art Linkletter} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. >> > >> > "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all >>> powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that >>> the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law >>> or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The >>> committee may recommend to the Director that he change his >>> ruling." L93B >> > >> > There is no condition that this only applies to laws and >> > regulations that are explicit. >> > >> +=+ My view is that if, for example, the alerting regulation says >> "alert any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning", the >> AC cannot overrule the Director when he states that an alert is >> required of any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning. >> However, if he then goes on to say "and the meaning of this call is >> potentially unexpected" then, unless he can point to a supportive >> expansion of the regulation, he is exercising bridge judgement in >> asserting that the call is such a call. He is not now stating the >> regulation but is expressing an opinion, a bridge judgement, as >> to the application of the regulation. In this latter area of bridge >> judgement the AC is not prohibited, in my reading of the law, >> from replacing the Director's bridge judgement with its own. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > To me the law seems to give the sole power of interpreting regulations > to the director. And further states that the appeal committee cannot > over-rule the director on a point of law. I would take that to mean > that the director's interpretation of the law cannot be over-ruled. > Wayne > +=+ I think you fail to make the distinction between stating and interpreting the law, on the one hand, and using bridge judgement in the application of the law on the other. The Law in question is Law 93B3. If your interpretation is adopted I suggest it establishes the position in which if the Director says "Pass is a logical alternative to the bid of 4S" the AC cannot overrule him on this. He will say "this is my interpretation of the law and, as a point of law, it cannot be gainsaid by the AC". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 31 12:27:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:27:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <000a01c81ba1$802ff3d0$069b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <001001c81bb1$12211b20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > [Herman] > > But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting, > > I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with > > alerting are also present with announcing. And then some. > > > +=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce > the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-) I read this story from an American bridge club back in the thirties. Culbertson had just introduced his asking bids and a new player to the club sat down with his (her?) partner and asked if they would use asking bids. The response was "yes". Then in one of the auctions our player suddenly asked: "Do you have the Diamond King partner?" How much simpler would it not be if instead of having to say 4NT we could just ask "How many aces do you have?" and partner answer "two out of five"! After all, it is the same - isn't it? Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 31 12:44:04 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:44:04 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 31/10/2007 02:57:04 GMT Standard Time, wjburrows at gmail.com writes: >I would take that to mean >that the director's interpretation of the law cannot be over-ruled. Surely all decisions at the bridge table are the director's interpretation of the law. Therefore the AC cannot ever overrule the director and all its decisions are invalid. h? eis to adunaton apag?g? ... From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 31 14:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5DA73283-E746-44D8-8C6A-C55DA138DBE0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: The new laws don't appear to address rationality *or* irrationality. Perhaps I should ask a different question - does "normal" include the bizarre/inconceivable for the class of player involved? Previously one was able to use "irrational" to exclude such possibilities. I remain of the opinion that trying a failing trump squeeze might be "normal" for a flawed Hamman claim it would not be a line I'd consider in a flawed moderate player claim. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 31 14:56:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gampas wrote: > Surely all decisions at the bridge table are the director's > interpretation of the law. Therefore the AC cannot ever overrule > the director Basically true. It is clear from L81c5 that the TD alone is responsible for ensuring that any ruling given by an AC is legal. It is also within the legal remit of a TD to instruct an AC comprised of players not to consider pass an LA (disobedience would be an offence against L90b8) but it's not often a TD will try this! > and all its decisions are invalid. Basically untrue - the TD will often (indeed almost always) accept the opinion of an AC on matters of law. The TD should (if he is briefing an AC properly) be instructing the AC to apply it's judgement to one or more specific issues. Since he is asking them to override his judgement should they see fit then it is not invalid for them so to do. An AC has as little (or as much) power/authority as the TD *wishes* to give it. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 31 15:27:42 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:27:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It is also within the legal remit of a TD to instruct an AC > comprised of > players not to consider pass an LA Oh? How so? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 31 15:29:52 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:29:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <47269D6F.8020902@ntlworld.com> References: <4725606F.70706@ntlworld.com> <200710290549.AA11176@geller204.nifty.com> <4725C6D5.7030804@ntlworld.com> <6276816E-96BD-4080-B058-0A29C817BDF9@rochester.rr.com> <47269D6F.8020902@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00B3F6B4-028D-40FD-A1BC-007EB04844F7@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Yes Ed. Among other one-line put-downs like ... Wasn't a put down. I was just trying to point out it's not as easy as you seem to think. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 31 17:50:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > It is also within the legal remit of a TD to instruct an AC > > comprised of players not to consider pass an LA Because the laws do not limit the instructions which a TD may give - and there is clear obligation on players to do as they are told (L90b8 is unrestricted). Being appointed to an AC does not absolve a player of the L90b8 requirement to obey. Tim From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 31 18:36:20 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:36:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: Message-ID: <017e01c81be4$8d434a70$ab719951@stefanie> Seems pretty unlikely. > > On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> It is also within the legal remit of a TD to instruct an AC >> comprised of >> players not to consider pass an LA > > Oh? How so? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 31 20:13:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:13:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The new laws don't appear to address rationality *or* irrationality. > > Perhaps I should ask a different question - does "normal" include the > bizarre/inconceivable for the class of player involved? It would seem to, per the new wording of the footnote. A play can't be "bizarre/inconceivable" -- or, for that matter, "irrational" -- while simultaneously being neither careless nor inferior. That said, I await an official interpretation from the WBF which will, gross affront to the English language notwithstanding, make it so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 31 21:08:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <959D99E2-93B8-484C-869B-DCA029834D08@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 31, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ed wrote: > >>> It is also within the legal remit of a TD to instruct an AC >>> comprised of players not to consider pass an LA > > Because the laws do not limit the instructions which a TD may give > - and > there is clear obligation on players to do as they are told (L90b8 is > unrestricted). Being appointed to an AC does not absolve a player > of the > L90b8 requirement to obey. Actually, *you* wrote what you attribute above to me. I asked you "how so?" I don't buy your argument. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 31 21:09:29 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:09:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <017e01c81be4$8d434a70$ab719951@stefanie> References: <017e01c81be4$8d434a70$ab719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <192F7DB3-0EBD-4C2C-9712-A638DB0C2A23@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 31, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Seems pretty unlikely. Heh. I'd call that an understatement. :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 31 23:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <017e01c81be4$8d434a70$ab719951@stefanie> Message-ID: > *From:* "Stefanie Rohan" > *To:* "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:36:20 -0000 > > Seems pretty unlikely. It may seem unlikely but the laws of bridge are not exactly complete. If, as TD, I instruct a player to dance naked on the table a failure to comply is a disciplinary offence despite the fact that some may consider my initial instruction a tad unreasonable. Of course the club might give serious consideration to my employment contract - just as my National Authority might overrule an AC which I had instructed as to LAs. However, in neither case would they find evidence of my initial instruction failing to comply with the laws of bridge. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 31 23:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <959D99E2-93B8-484C-869B-DCA029834D08@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > *From:* Ed Reppert > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:54 -0400 Ed wrote: > Actually, *you* wrote what you attribute above to me. I asked you > "how so?" > > I don't buy your argument. Sorry - over-assiduous snipping. Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction" of L90b8. Law and discipline is the sole responsibility of the TD. Instructing the AC is the sole remit of the TD. Ensuring that any ruling (including one suggested by an AC) is legal and correct is the sole responsibility of the TD. If, as a TD, I have already established beyond reasonable doubt that MI has occurred (and particularly if none of the players dispute this at all) but I wish the AC to apply their expertise to determining the likely result (which the is the matter disputed) then that's what I expect the AC to do. It might be rare but it's not illegal. Tim