From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Nov 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:01:00 +0100 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 Thu Nov 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for October 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 109 hermandw (at) skynet.be 87 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 77 svenpran (at) online.no 65 ehaa (at) starpower.net 62 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 53 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 45 Gampas (at) aol.com 42 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 37 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 31 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 29 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 25 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 20 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 20 mustikka (at) charter.net 19 twm (at) cix.co.uk 18 john (at) asimere.com 16 swillner (at) nhcc.net 16 geller (at) nifty.com 16 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 14 cibor (at) poczta.fm 13 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 12 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 10 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 8 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 8 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 8 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 8 adam (at) irvine.com 7 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 5 henk (at) ripe.net 5 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 schoderb (at) msn.com 3 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 joanandron (at) worldnet.att.net 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 2 eitan.bridge (at) gmail.com 2 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 2 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 2 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 webmaster (at) bridgefederation.ch 1 rui.mlmarques (at) netvisao.pt 1 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 1 picatou (at) picatou.com 1 ken.johnston (at) btinternet.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jeffford (at) gmail.com 1 dkent (at) sujja.com 1 dcrc2h (at) hotmail.co.uk 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com 1 bbickford (at) charter.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 anna (at) ecats.co.uk From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 1 03:11:17 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:11:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Logical Alternative In-Reply-To: <200710241819.l9OIJSxK015027@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710241819.l9OIJSxK015027@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <472935C5.3060207@nhcc.net> [definition of "logical alternative"] > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Perhaps someone could find time to look up the > WBF Code of Practice. Thanks, Grattan, for the very gentle correction. As you say, the definition in the new Laws is identical to the one in the CoP. I'm now confused about the history. The ACBL had "seriously consider" for many years. The CoP (and 2007 FLB) adds "some might adopt." Has the ACBL added that as well? If so, when did it happen? Or is "seriously consider" alone still in force here? Regardless of history, I expect the new, much more stringent, definition is going to have a significant effect in most of the world outside the ACBL. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 1 03:18:16 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:18:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] When not asking a question changes your agreements In-Reply-To: <200710302102.l9UL2Qhc009563@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710302102.l9UL2Qhc009563@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47293768.8030105@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > I don't understand how a player can profit from this manoeuvre. I can give you a practical example. My partner and I use an artificial 1D opening bid, alerted rather than announced. Some opponents have a "sophisticated" defense: an immediate 2D bid is "Michaels" (showing both majors), whereas asking for an explanation of 1D and then bidding 2D is natural. Very clever! (Neither meaning for 2D is alertable in the ACBL.) As a practical matter, I would not expect to get any redress if opponents profit by this method. (In some games -- not ones I regularly play in! -- I'd expect to be told off for using unfamiliar methods.) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 1 03:51:12 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:51:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <959C80AC-0BB2-4895-B77D-4CEC37EB2E1A@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction" of > L90b8. One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge judgement. Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that purpose. Therefore I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me, as an AC member, to ignore that purpose, I would resign from the committee rather than follow that instruction. And I would report the incident to the appropriate authority (which, I grant you, might not mean much). From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 07:29:44 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:29:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00bf01c81a8b$db7ba930$0dca403e@Mildred> References: <00bf01c81a8b$db7ba930$0dca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560710312329k510d17e7oec4c165d5ab8e6e8@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: "David Collier" > 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 ~ +=+ Forgive me for being cynical but I can't help but think that the real reason that the word 'convention' has been dropped is so that Regulating Authorities can regulate unconstrained. For years their have been constraints on the Regulating Authorities (NOs and SOs) written in the laws. Those organizations have at times ignored the constraints imposed upon then and either flagrantly or by exploiting loopholes ignored those constraints. My NO for example in response to my question to them wrote that L40 was never intended to constrain them. The word 'never' was capitalized and written in bold. Wayne From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 1 09:38:56 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 04:38:56 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 01/11/2007 02:52:19 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge judgement. >Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that purpose. Therefore >I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me, as an AC member, to >ignore that purpose, I would resign from the committee rather than >follow that instruction. And I would report the incident to the >appropriate authority (which, I grant you, might not mean much). Shucks. I thought I was on safe ground when directing our Christmas Social each year when deciding that on one board play will be anticlockwise and on another North will be a member of the silent Eustacian order like Brother Anthony. Not to mention the other rules I brought in on the other 14 boards we play. E.Reppert seems to think I cannot make any decisions on the Laws of Bridge I like and these can be overturned by an AC. From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 1 09:44:28 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:44:28 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file In-Reply-To: <000a01c81ba1$802ff3d0$069b87d9@Hellen> References: <000a01c81ba1$802ff3d0$069b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <200711010844.AA11234@geller204.nifty.com> >+=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce >the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-) Why take half measures? Instead of making the call "double" let's just change the rules so you can say, "I double that for penalties" or "I double that for takeout" or "I'll make an optional double of that". This minor rules change would eliminate all the problems that come up over MI and UI now. -Bob Grattan Endicott writes: > >Grattan Endicott >grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk >[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] >************************* >"A finished product is one that >has already seen its better days." > {Art Linkletter} >vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Guthrie" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:06 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file > > >> >> [Herman] >> But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting, >> I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with >> alerting are also present with announcing. And then some. >> >+=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce >the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 1 11:45:14 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:45:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <00bf01c81a8b$db7ba930$0dca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560710312329k510d17e7oec4c165d5ab8e6e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001c81c78$61e68650$bfd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 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: "David Collier" >> 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 ~ +=+ > > Forgive me for being cynical but I can't help but think that the real > reason that the word 'convention' has been dropped is so that > Regulating Authorities can regulate unconstrained. > +=+ That objective could be achieved whether or no the word 'convention' were dropped. The fact, as I have indicated, is that over many years no attempt to define 'convention' in the laws has proved satisfactory to all. There always seems to be a flaw. So the easy exit is to abolish the need for a definition in the laws. For a dictionary definition try: < 'convention' (bridge) = a call or play not to be taken at its face value, which one's partner can interpret according to a prearranged system. > But the fact is that if a RA uses the word it can, if it wishes, also define it. An RA may also say "Where for the purposes of these regulations the laws require an understanding to be designated a 'special partnership understanding' it is so designated." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 1 14:42:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > 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. Of course it can. A trump squeeze might be technically superior (say 60% chance of success against 50%) but happens to fail. It might also be "inconceivable" (ie beyond the wildest improbable dreams of ever being understood/recognised/attempted) by my dear Mrs Guggenheim - who thought it obvious that she was simply taking the heart finesse again ("it worked the first time dear"). Hamman wouldn't have claimed in the same position of course - he would have played the trump squeeze out and gone off. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 1 14:42:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <959C80AC-0BB2-4895-B77D-4CEC37EB2E1A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > *From:* Ed Reppert > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:51:12 -0400 > > On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction" > > of L90b8. > > One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge > judgement. Not according to the laws. The purpose of an AC is not actually defined. IMO (and this *is* an interpretation of a point of law!) the purpose of an AC is to assist the TD in giving high quality rulings. The TD is *responsible* for the final ruling - the AC is not. > Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that > purpose. Therefore I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me, > as an AC member, to ignore that purpose, I would resign from the > committee rather than follow that instruction. Technically I, as TD, can discipline you for disobeying my instruction to serve on the AC! Usually I try and get volunteers on ACs so that wouldn't apply. > And I would report the incident to the appropriate authority > (which, I grant you, might not mean much). And my instruction having been "I have investigated the incident and discussed it with the players - they all know eachother well and universally agreed that pass would simply not be an LA for Jim (while it might be for others) so please don't spend time on this issue. The reason for the appeal is..." Do you think the "appropriate authority" will deem my instruction illegal (and if so as a breach of which law?). Other possible scenarios might include ones where the best player in the room is the TD and the 2nd-5th best players involved at the appealing table while the residue have no/limited AC experience. The TD may need to brief very closely in order to ensure a good result. Of course if a TD instructs an AC of superior players not to review his bridge judgement on a clearly delicate and disputed issue he is acting *unwisely* - and a higher authority might find grounds to overturn the ruling given by an obedient AC and to reprimand the TD on the grounds of *competence*. Tim From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 1 15:25:38 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:25:38 -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> <003601c81b40$0c13a4d0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <010001c81c93$13062840$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [John Probst, CTD bridgeclublive.com] > my experience of WBF alerting is that it's way better than EBU or ACBL > alerting. Makes one wonder why we feel the need to reinvent the wheel by producing page upon page of complex alerting regulations in the Orange Book. WBF permitted agreements lists could be used too. These would have to be modified to fit what we want at our levels of competition, but it would be a matter of moving round paragraphs and sections rather than doing the whole thing from scratch. Cheers Stefanie From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 1 18:43:57 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:43:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <010001c81c93$13062840$0100a8c0@stefanie> 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> <010001c81c93$13062840$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <472A105D.3060201@ntlworld.com> [John Probst ... from the "On-line law reform" thread] ...my experience of WBF alerting is that it's way better than EBU or alerting. [Stefanie Rohan] Makes one wonder why we feel the need to reinvent the wheel by producing page upon page of complex alerting regulations in the Orange Book. WBF permitted agreements lists could be used too. These would have to be modified to fit what we want at our levels of competition, but it would be a matter of moving round paragraphs and sections rather than doing the whole thing from scratch. [Nige1] John and Stephanie are right :) And Herman seems to be suggesting much the same :) This is progress. A large step in the right direction... [A] If the WBF Coc were part of the law book as *default* law, then... (i) Conformance would save local jurisdictions a lot of work :) (ii) If a parochial local jurisdiction tried to impose a chauvinistic variant, then local players might realise what they were missing and vocalise their dissent A few more small steps and we're nearly there. [B] Define a simple coherent playable subset of agreements as a *standard system* [C] When playing without screens, alert -- or better announce -- departures therefrom. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 1 18:45:24 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:45:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <472A105D.3060201@ntlworld.com> 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> <010001c81c93$13062840$0100a8c0@stefanie> <472A105D.3060201@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <472A10B4.2030902@ntlworld.com> Sorry Stefanie :( mispelt your name :( From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 21:22:14 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:22:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <484DFDC6-3D27-4692-9B13-726B04FEB901@starpower.net> On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > >>> 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. > > Of course it can. A trump squeeze might be technically superior > (say 60% > chance of success against 50%) but happens to fail. It might also be > "inconceivable" (ie beyond the wildest improbable dreams of ever being > understood/recognised/attempted) by my dear Mrs Guggenheim - who > thought > it obvious that she was simply taking the heart finesse again ("it > worked > the first time dear"). > > Hamman wouldn't have claimed in the same position of course - he would > have played the trump squeeze out and gone off. Point taken. I admit I was not thinking in terms of plays that might be bizarrely or inconceivably careful or superior. Since "normal" includes, in addition to the unarguably normal, the otherwise abnormally careless or inferior, it must exclude the otherwise abnormally careful or superior, else it would include everything. For Mrs. Guggenheim to find a trump squeeze is neither normal nor "normal"; for Mr. Hamman to overlook one is only the latter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 21:57:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:57:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7974B6F5-FE22-42EC-8FE3-7BA67208B5F0@starpower.net> On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> *From:* Ed Reppert >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:51:12 -0400 >> >> On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>> Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction" >>> of L90b8. >> >> One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge >> judgement. > > Not according to the laws. The purpose of an AC is not actually > defined. > IMO (and this *is* an interpretation of a point of law!) the > purpose of > an AC is to assist the TD in giving high quality rulings. The TD is > *responsible* for the final ruling - the AC is not. > >> Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that >> purpose. Therefore I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me, >> as an AC member, to ignore that purpose, I would resign from the >> committee rather than follow that instruction. > > Technically I, as TD, can discipline you for disobeying my > instruction to > serve on the AC! Usually I try and get volunteers on ACs so that > wouldn't apply. > >> And I would report the incident to the appropriate authority >> (which, I grant you, might not mean much). > > And my instruction having been "I have investigated the incident and > discussed it with the players - they all know eachother well and > universally agreed that pass would simply not be an LA for Jim > (while it > might be for others) so please don't spend time on this issue. The > reason for the appeal is..." > > Do you think the "appropriate authority" will deem my instruction > illegal > (and if so as a breach of which law?). > > Other possible scenarios might include ones where the best player > in the > room is the TD and the 2nd-5th best players involved at the appealing > table while the residue have no/limited AC experience. The TD may > need > to brief very closely in order to ensure a good result. > > Of course if a TD instructs an AC of superior players not to review > his > bridge judgement on a clearly delicate and disputed issue he is acting > *unwisely* - and a higher authority might find grounds to overturn the > ruling given by an obedient AC and to reprimand the TD on the > grounds of > *competence*. I don't see how we can read L90 as giving the TD such essentially unlimited power without, for example, obviating the right to appeal granted players by L92A. Tim, as TD, cannot legally discipline me for disobeying his instruction to decline to appeal his ruling, nor, if that is to mean anything, achieve the same effect less directly, as by directing the AC to reach a pre-determined verdict, or simply, as he claims the power to direct players to serve, by directing them all not to! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Fri Nov 2 01:34:58 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:34:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown References: <484DFDC6-3D27-4692-9B13-726B04FEB901@starpower.net> Message-ID: If what you say Mr. Landau is that evaluation of players' abilities is not relevant to irtational, then I think you are on the right track. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown > On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Eric wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > > Of course it can. A trump squeeze might be technically superior > > (say 60% > > chance of success against 50%) but happens to fail. It might also be > > "inconceivable" (ie beyond the wildest improbable dreams of ever being > > understood/recognised/attempted) by my dear Mrs Guggenheim - who > > thought > > it obvious that she was simply taking the heart finesse again ("it > > worked > > the first time dear"). > > > > Hamman wouldn't have claimed in the same position of course - he would > > have played the trump squeeze out and gone off. > > Point taken. I admit I was not thinking in terms of plays that might > be bizarrely or inconceivably careful or superior. Since "normal" > includes, in addition to the unarguably normal, the otherwise > abnormally careless or inferior, it must exclude the otherwise > abnormally careful or superior, else it would include everything. > For Mrs. Guggenheim to find a trump squeeze is neither normal nor > "normal"; for Mr. Hamman to overlook one is only the latter. > > > 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 schoderb at msn.com Fri Nov 2 01:40:20 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:40:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: <7974B6F5-FE22-42EC-8FE3-7BA67208B5F0@starpower.net> Message-ID: I would only hope that Tim's last posting was the result of overibibence, or a glitch in the computer. If he is serious, he needs to turn in any qualifications he may have on hand as a TD and preserve the game from his misguided ideas. He is so far off base that I couldn't help but believe he was kidding. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >> *From:* Ed Reppert > >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:51:12 -0400 > >> > >> On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> > >>> Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction" > >>> of L90b8. > >> > >> One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge > >> judgement. > > > > Not according to the laws. The purpose of an AC is not actually > > defined. > > IMO (and this *is* an interpretation of a point of law!) the > > purpose of > > an AC is to assist the TD in giving high quality rulings. The TD is > > *responsible* for the final ruling - the AC is not. > > > >> Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that > >> purpose. Therefore I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me, > >> as an AC member, to ignore that purpose, I would resign from the > >> committee rather than follow that instruction. > > > > Technically I, as TD, can discipline you for disobeying my > > instruction to > > serve on the AC! Usually I try and get volunteers on ACs so that > > wouldn't apply. > > > >> And I would report the incident to the appropriate authority > >> (which, I grant you, might not mean much). > > > > And my instruction having been "I have investigated the incident and > > discussed it with the players - they all know eachother well and > > universally agreed that pass would simply not be an LA for Jim > > (while it > > might be for others) so please don't spend time on this issue. The > > reason for the appeal is..." > > > > Do you think the "appropriate authority" will deem my instruction > > illegal > > (and if so as a breach of which law?). > > > > Other possible scenarios might include ones where the best player > > in the > > room is the TD and the 2nd-5th best players involved at the appealing > > table while the residue have no/limited AC experience. The TD may > > need > > to brief very closely in order to ensure a good result. > > > > Of course if a TD instructs an AC of superior players not to review > > his > > bridge judgement on a clearly delicate and disputed issue he is acting > > *unwisely* - and a higher authority might find grounds to overturn the > > ruling given by an obedient AC and to reprimand the TD on the > > grounds of > > *competence*. > > I don't see how we can read L90 as giving the TD such essentially > unlimited power without, for example, obviating the right to appeal > granted players by L92A. Tim, as TD, cannot legally discipline me > for disobeying his instruction to decline to appeal his ruling, nor, > if that is to mean anything, achieve the same effect less directly, > as by directing the AC to reach a pre-determined verdict, or simply, > as he claims the power to direct players to serve, by directing them > all not to! > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 2 02:31:04 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:31:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > E.Reppert seems to think I cannot make any decisions on the Laws of > Bridge > I like and these can be overturned by an AC. You *can* do whatever you damn well please. And if your customers are happy with it, that's fine with me (though if you're awarding masterpoints sanctioned by some authority, that authority may have some objection). What you can't do, though, is violate, ignore, or modify the laws of the game and then claim you're still playing duplicate contract bridge. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 2 02:32:09 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:32:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Technically I, as TD, can discipline you for disobeying my > instruction to > serve on the AC! Good luck with that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 2 02:40:05 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:40:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Do you think the "appropriate authority" will deem my instruction > illegal > (and if so as a breach of which law?). I don't know. whether it's illegal, and by which law, is *their* remit - which is why I would tell them about it. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 2 03:21:04 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:21:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472A8990.1080903@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] E.Reppert seems to think I cannot make any decisions on the Laws of Bridge I like and these can be overturned by an AC. [Ed Reppert] You *can* do whatever you damn well please. And if your customers are happy with it, that's fine with me (though if you're awarding masterpoints sanctioned by some authority, that authority may have some objection). What you can't do, though, is violate, ignore, or modify the laws of the game and then claim you're still playing duplicate contract bridge. [nige1] Ed, I think Paul's last post was intended as light relief from Tim's "droit de seigneur" theories of directing :) eg ordering the women to dance naked on the tables! Does the WBF employ Tim to recruit directors? if so, he's doing an excellent job! Perhaps, I've been over-critical of current laws. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 2 04:50:24 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 23:50:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: <472A8990.1080903@ntlworld.com> References: <472A8990.1080903@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <43E7D161-3A3A-4B07-98EA-09D0302010E6@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Ed, I think Paul's last post was intended as light relief from Tim's > "droit de seigneur" theories of directing :) Heh. Sometimes my humor detector fails me. :/ From Gampas at aol.com Fri Nov 2 10:05:27 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 05:05:27 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 02/11/2007 02:21:24 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [Paul Lamford] E.Reppert seems to think I cannot make any decisions on the Laws of Bridge I like and these can be overturned by an AC. [Ed Reppert] You *can* do whatever you damn well please. And if your customers are happy with it, that's fine with me (though if you're awarding masterpoints sanctioned by some authority, that authority may have some objection). What you can't do, though, is violate, ignore, or modify the laws of the game and then claim you're still playing duplicate contract bridge. [nige1] Ed, I think Paul's last post was intended as light relief from Tim's "droit de seigneur" theories of directing :) eg ordering the women to dance naked on the tables! Does the WBF employ Tim to recruit directors? if so, he's doing an excellent job! Perhaps, I've been over-critical of current laws. [Paul Lamford] Indee it it was intended as satire, but that always confuses the serious. And I certainly won't be inviting Ed Reppert to our Christmas Social if he is going to kick up a fuss about playing anticlockwise or having aces as low and deuces as high. Especially if he thinks "every idiot who goes about with a ? Merry Christmas? on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart". We did discontinue awarding masterpoints in our Christmas Social, following complaints from Brother Anthony that he played under different rules, by the way. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 2 11:12:44 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:12:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. References: Message-ID: <002c01c81d39$0412ee30$56d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. > In a message dated 02/11/2007 02:21:24 GMT Standard Time, > guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: > > [Paul Lamford] > E.Reppert seems to think I cannot make any decisions on the Laws of > Bridge I like and these can be overturned by an AC. > > [Ed Reppert] > You *can* do whatever you damn well please. And if your customers are > happy with it, that's fine with me (though if you're awarding > masterpoints sanctioned by some authority, that authority may have > some objection). What you can't do, though, is violate, ignore, or > modify the laws of the game and then claim you're still playing > duplicate contract bridge. > > [nige1] > Ed, I think Paul's last post was intended as light relief from Tim's > "droit de seigneur" theories of directing :) eg ordering the women to > dance naked on the tables! Does the WBF employ Tim to recruit > directors? if so, he's doing an excellent job! Perhaps, I've been > over-critical of current laws. > > [Paul Lamford] > Indee it it was intended as satire, but that always confuses the serious. > And I certainly won't be inviting Ed Reppert to our Christmas Social if > he is going to kick up a fuss about playing anticlockwise or having > aces as low and deuces as high. Especially if he thinks "every idiot who > goes about with a ?Merry Christmas? on his lips should be boiled with > his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart". > We did discontinue awarding masterpoints in our Christmas Social, > following complaints from Brother Anthony that he played under > different rules, by the way. > +=+ Now that we have TDs with white beards and red cloaks the current threads have achieved their true level. But, Paul, you should issue Santapoints. Let us award the first 1000 to Tim. The interlude has its encouraging side. No longer do I seem to be reading debates about the 2007 Laws and this suggests a high degree of acceptance for their novelties. One or two NBOs have completed translations and are even contemplating a switch to them on January 1st. The slight adjustments notified this week rectify the only outstanding glitches that we are aware of, and I think the status is 'green'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 2 14:11:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:11:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Countdown In-Reply-To: References: <484DFDC6-3D27-4692-9B13-726B04FEB901@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9A8CCF55-DD52-456A-8FF2-58161520DCD0@starpower.net> On Nov 1, 2007, at 8:34 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > If what you say Mr. Landau is that evaluation of players' abilities > is not > relevant to irtational, then I think you are on the right track. Actually I've been saying that for years -- I believe I can rightfully claim to have been the strongest voice in this forum objecting to the WBF's reinterpretation of the 1997 footnote to state otherwise. And I will continue to say it when the discussion turns to the interpretation of L70E, where the word "irrational" now appears. But it no longer appears in the footnote. That raises a new concern: not whether a player's ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from which the refererence to it has been expunged. Tim's point, as I understand it, is that while it may be true that it is no longer relevant to the consideration of plays that are careless or inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>> Eric wrote: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Of course it can. A trump squeeze might be technically superior >>> (say 60% >>> chance of success against 50%) but happens to fail. It might >>> also be >>> "inconceivable" (ie beyond the wildest improbable dreams of ever >>> being >>> understood/recognised/attempted) by my dear Mrs Guggenheim - who >>> thought >>> it obvious that she was simply taking the heart finesse again ("it >>> worked >>> the first time dear"). >>> >>> Hamman wouldn't have claimed in the same position of course - he >>> would >>> have played the trump squeeze out and gone off. >> >> Point taken. I admit I was not thinking in terms of plays that might >> be bizarrely or inconceivably careful or superior. Since "normal" >> includes, in addition to the unarguably normal, the otherwise >> abnormally careless or inferior, it must exclude the otherwise >> abnormally careful or superior, else it would include everything. >> For Mrs. Guggenheim to find a trump squeeze is neither normal nor >> "normal"; for Mr. Hamman to overlook one is only the latter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Nov 2 17:29:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:29:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 6D2 Message-ID: <000501c81d6d$93eca760$0701a8c0@john> Law 6D2 refers to a "deck". the other laws refer to "pack". Clearly a Am. vs Brit. English thing. It can be lived with. john From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 3 04:24:43 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:24:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 2, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Indee it it was intended as satire, but that always confuses the > serious. > And I certainly won't be inviting Ed Reppert to our Christmas > Social if he is > going to kick up a fuss about playing anticlockwise or having aces > as low and > deuces as high. Long as I know going in what the rules are, I don't care. Might be fun. :-) When I was in college, I played a lot of "cutthroat" bridge (that's what we called it). Four handed game, but... If you had 13 HCP you were *required* (in theory) to open. Once an opening bid had been made, every subsequent bid had to be (a) sufficient according to the laws and (b) at least game. Once there were three passes, putative declarer (pd) (last person, rather than first, to bid the denomination) got to choose his dummy, who would move to sit across from pd if he wasn't already there, exchanging seats with the person who *was* there. Then there was "accept" or "reject" - putative dummy gets to say whether he really wants to be dummy, and if not he shares in the score the *defense* obtains, rather than the declarer. Lots of psyching going on, and some pretty strange bidding sequences. But it was fun. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 3 04:26:21 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:26:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 6D2 In-Reply-To: <000501c81d6d$93eca760$0701a8c0@john> References: <000501c81d6d$93eca760$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:29 PM, John Probst wrote: > Law 6D2 refers to a "deck". the other laws refer to "pack". Clearly > a Am. vs > Brit. English thing. It can be lived with. john Heh. American or not, I'm a sailor. A deck is something you stand on. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 3 15:31:52 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:31:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] A day late and a dollar short Message-ID: <1EDCABD7-B8B0-451F-BB54-36EF4D9419C8@rochester.rr.com> While I was responding to a thread on the BBO forums about Law 16, it occurred to me that Law 16A1 might have been better if worded "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he should obtain agreement from the opponents as to the facts, summoning the Director immediately if the opponents dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed." This has the same practical effect as the current law (substantially unchanged in the new laws), at least in the ACBL, except it places the onus to call the director on the player who asserts there was UI rather than on the opponents who don't agree. I don't see a problem with it, but it was my idea, so maybe I'm blinded by my own brilliance :)). Anyway, what does the list think? From ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Sat Nov 3 20:28:54 2007 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:28:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Revisions Message-ID: Would it be a good idea to have a page at the beginning of the new Laws (when printed) where any revisions can be noted. My 1997 Law book has several hand written amendments (e.g. L39B: If offender?s LHO calls, see Law 35D.) and if I have to use another Law book I can never be sure that these have been incorporated. If revisions were numbered, and the person doing the updating has a place to record what's been done, then it means I can easily tell that the book is up to date. Ken No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date: 02/11/2007 21:46 From Gampas at aol.com Sun Nov 4 02:26:20 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:26:20 EDT Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. Message-ID: In a message dated 03/11/2007 03:25:50 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >When I was in college, I played a lot of "cutthroat" bridge (that's >what we called it). Four handed game, but... If you had 13 HCP you >were *required* (in theory) to open. Once an opening bid had been >made, every subsequent bid had to be (a) sufficient according to the >laws and (b) at least game. Once there were three passes, putative >declarer (pd) (last person, rather than first, to bid the >denomination) got to choose his dummy, who would move to sit across >from pd if he wasn't already there, exchanging seats with the person >who *was* there. Then there was "accept" or "reject" - putative dummy >gets to say whether he really wants to be dummy, and if not he shares >in the score the *defense* obtains, rather than the declarer. Lots of >psyching going on, and some pretty strange bidding sequences. But it >was fun. :-) Those rules sound fun too. As it is the silly season, and as a light diversion from discussion of the new laws, here are our 24 boards for our Social: RULES AFFECTING THE BIDDING 1 SPEAK UP!: The dealer is not allowed to pass on his or her first turn. _______________________________________________________________ 3 PASSOVER: The auction will end after FOUR consecutive passes. _______________________________________________________________ 5 BOX CLEVERLY: Insufficient bids are allowed, provided you still have that bid in the bidding box. _______________________________________________________________ 7 FULL STOP: After any stop bid, the next player must pass. The auction still ends after three consecutive passes. _______________________________________________________________ 9 SHORTS ONLY: No player is allowed to bid his or her longest suit at any stage in the auction. _______________________________________________________________ 11 MIXED NEWS: The order of bidding is North-South-West-East. Dealer starts as normal. Three consecutive passes still end the auction! _______________________________________________________________ 13 FOUR-TIMER: Any double MUST be followed by a redouble. The auction then continues normally, until there are three consecutive passes. _______________________________________________________________ 15 UPSIDE_DOWN: The order of the suits when bidding is reversed, so that 1NT is the lowest bid and 7C is the highest bid. Scoring is normal. ___________________________________________________________ 17 ACES LOW: The rank of the cards is reversed, so that ace is low and deuce is high, but otherwise play is the same. _______________________________________________________________ 19 QUIET PLEASE: All bids must be mimed (hint: No-trump = not rump) ______________________________________________________________ 21 DOUBLE TROUBLE: The final contract will be doubled. _______________________________________________________________ 23 NATURISTS ONLY: No conventions are allowed, not even Stayman. _______________________________________________________________ RULES AFFECTING THE PLAY 2 DUMMY REVERSAL: Dummy, which is still placed face-up, will play its own cards _______________________________________________________________ 4 NEW CONTRACT: The final contract is changed to 3NT. _______________________________________________________________ 6 LADIES FIRST: The queens of each suit are now the top card, then aces, kings, jacks etc. _______________________________________________________________ 8 DON?T DRAW: A trump can not be led to any trick by any player, unless there is no alternative. No-trump contracts are normal. _______________________________________________________________ 10 DEUCES WILD: The four deuces are wild and can be played as any nominated card. They beat that card if it is played to the same trick. _______________________________________________________________ 12 WRONG WAY ROUND: Play is anti-clockwise, with the player to the left of declarer making the opening lead. _______________________________________________________________ 14 HIGH JINKS: The highest card of the suit led must be played by all players, including dummy. _______________________________________________________________ 16 NO CHOICE: Declarer tells the opening leader which suit to lead. ________________________________________________________________________ 18 MISERE: Declarer tries not to make the contract, and the defenders try to make him or her make it. Scores are entered in reverse, so 3NT ? 2 is 3NT + 2. _______________________________________________________________ 20 NEW PARTNERS: Dummy is the partner of the opening leader, so that tricks won by them are defenders? but declarer still plays dummy?s cards. _______________________________________________________________ 22 WRONG HAND: Declarer can lead from either hand, regardless of who won the last trick. _______________________________________________________________ 24 NO MORE, NO LESS: Declarer has to make his or her contract exactly; any overtricks are scored as undertricks, so the contract fails. Odd boards affect the bidding; even boards the play, so the slip is opened at the appropriate time. From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 4 11:18:01 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:18:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Revisions References: Message-ID: <000b01c81ecb$fc0a31a0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Interesting... I also have handwritten ammendments in my 1997 Law book, but the one you quote is not one of them. Where did you get a book that was published before mine was? Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Richardson" To: Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [blml] Revisions Would it be a good idea to have a page at the beginning of the new Laws (when printed) where any revisions can be noted. My 1997 Law book has several hand written amendments (e.g. L39B: If offender's LHO calls, see Law 35D.) and if I have to use another Law book I can never be sure that these have been incorporated. If revisions were numbered, and the person doing the updating has a place to record what's been done, then it means I can easily tell that the book is up to date. Ken No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date: 02/11/2007 21:46 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date: 11/2/2007 9:46 PM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 4 10:25:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:25:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Countdown References: <484DFDC6-3D27-4692-9B13-726B04FEB901@starpower.net> <9A8CCF55-DD52-456A-8FF2-58161520DCD0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001501c81ed6$b33db720$66c9403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott geggeg at tiscali.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "A grievance is most poignant when almost redressed." ~ Eric Hoffer. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown > On Nov 1, 2007, at 8:34 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> If what you say Mr. Landau is that evaluation of players' abilities >> is not >> relevant to irtational, then I think you are on the right track. > > Actually I've been saying that for years -- I believe I can > rightfully claim to have been the strongest voice in this forum > objecting to the WBF's reinterpretation of the 1997 footnote to state > otherwise. And I will continue to say it when the discussion turns > to the interpretation of L70E, where the word "irrational" now appears. > > But it no longer appears in the footnote. That raises a new concern: > not whether a player's ability is relevant to "irrational", but > whether "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from which the > refererence to it has been expunged. Tim's point, as I understand > it, is that while it may be true that it is no longer relevant to the > consideration of plays that are careless or inferior, it may remain > relevant to consideration of plays which are neither (like trump > squeezes when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). > +=+ In 70E the word is used with its dictionary meaning. It applies in the single circumstance that claimer proposes a line of play not included in the statement of claim and there is no other rational line of play. It has no other application and has been expunged from the text elsewhere. I have long noted that both Kojak and Eric Landau have shared this opinion, with equal force and no less endurance. From time to time I have echoed the view and at long last Kojak had his way in the matter during the Laws Review for 2007. The key fact is that a link that had developed between 'irrational' and 'class of player' has been removed - when the footnote appeared in 1987 the placing of the comma interrupted any such linkage and it has taken all this time to recover from a subsequent deflection of the meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 4 12:50:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:50:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Revisions References: <000b01c81ecb$fc0a31a0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <003e01c81ed9$04261400$66c9403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott geggeg at tiscali.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ The main value perhaps is in keeping a record of law references/applications that we bring away from seminars etc. ~ G ~ +=+ ====================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revisions > Interesting... I also have handwritten ammendments in > my 1997 Law book, but the one you quote is not one > of them. Where did you get a book that was published > before mine was? > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Richardson" > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:28 PM > Subject: [blml] Revisions > > > Would it be a good idea to have a page at the beginning > of the new Laws (when printed) where any revisions can > be noted. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 4 13:26:18 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:26:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' Message-ID: <006301c81edd$fcbed670$66c9403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > But it no longer appears in the footnote. That > raises a new concern: not whether a player's > ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether > "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from > which the refererence to it has been expunged. > Tim's point, as I understand it, is that while it > may be true that it is no longer relevant to the > consideration of plays that are careless or > inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration > of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes > when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ I wonder whether what is not being absorbed here is the requirement in the substantive law that the Director shall only postulate plays that are, in bridge terms without reference to the class of player, normal. If a play would be abnormal whoever might make it then the Director is not entitled to consider it. To that extent irrational plays would be excluded from the Director's mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Nov 5 03:38:50 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:38:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer Message-ID: Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, identifying the dealer and vulnerability. The absence of a sticker indicates that the player is not the dealer and is not vulnerable. On one such board 4, the sticker for West as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked. The second time the board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), South opens out of turn. Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn? L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as marked, which would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East vulnerable but West not vulnerable. From john at asimere.com Mon Nov 5 05:32:37 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 04:32:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer References: Message-ID: <003901c81f64$e5447a40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:38 AM Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer > Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, > identifying the > dealer and vulnerability. The absence of a sticker indicates that the > player is > not the dealer and is not vulnerable. On one such board 4, the sticker > for West > as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked. The second time > the > board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), South > opens > out of turn. Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn? I rule fouled board :) john > > L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as marked, > which > would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East > vulnerable but > West not vulnerable. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Nov 2 20:50:01 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction Message-ID: <003c01c81d89$90946af0$218ee151@home4paplwv76s> Team play EW/W K AJ9762 KT2 J62 T8642 AQ T85 Q3 ------ J86543 KQT53 A84 J9753 K4 AQ97 97 At one table they put the board in the wrong direction and looked at the cards. This board had been played in the other room. 3DX down 4 by East. 1100 Normal results are 3-4H down 2-3 by North. How do you solve this problem? Kindly refer to used Law or other regulation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071102/686c49cb/attachment.htm From john at asimere.com Mon Nov 5 09:27:37 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:27:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: <003c01c81d89$90946af0$218ee151@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <001901c81f85$b93e2bf0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torsten ?strand" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:50 PM Subject: [blml] Wrong direction If this is face-to-face you need to check your own country's regulations. _In the UK_, I can award 16 imps. (1300-1400) It's normally 3 imps for a fouled board, but one is allowed to take into account any "strange" result. The White Book refers. Law 12A applies. If it's Victory points I'd also fine both sides 3 imps, though theres no point if it's ko. I'd need more details to give a further opinion John probst. Team play EW/W K AJ9762 KT2 J62 T8642 AQ T85 Q3 ------ J86543 KQT53 A84 J9753 K4 AQ97 97 At one table they put the board in the wrong direction and looked at the cards. This board had been played in the other room. 3DX down 4 by East. 1100 Normal results are 3-4H down 2-3 by North. How do you solve this problem? Kindly refer to used Law or other regulation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 5 10:47:19 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:47:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472EE6A7.1020903@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, identifying the > dealer and vulnerability. The absence of a sticker indicates that the player is > not the dealer and is not vulnerable. On one such board 4, the sticker for West > as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked. The second time the > board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), South opens > out of turn. Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn? > > L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as marked, which > would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East vulnerable but > West not vulnerable. > > L2 says that, when there is a discrepancy between the official dealer+vulnerability and what's mentioned on the board, the board takes precedence. While the subject of vulnerability isn't settled by the board (which could result in a fouled board, if for example EW played variable NT and had a mixup in all good faith due to the improper marking), the facts are that South shouldn't be the opener in the official schedule, that there was no indication at all that South was dealer, and that South did open . Therefore, South opened OOT. It has been ruled, however, that somebody who opens because it's one's turn to open on this board according to the L2 schedule, while the board mentions somebody else as opener, doesn't necessarily open OOT. Here, South didn't have this mitigating circumstance at one's disposal. What should have happened : nothing, until somebody asked "whose turn is it ?" and they realized the problem and called the TD. Best regards Alain NB : somebody please tell whether the message format problem is solved ; I changed mailing systems. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 5 10:47:19 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:47:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472EE6A7.1020903@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, identifying the > dealer and vulnerability. The absence of a sticker indicates that the player is > not the dealer and is not vulnerable. On one such board 4, the sticker for West > as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked. The second time the > board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), South opens > out of turn. Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn? > > L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as marked, which > would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East vulnerable but > West not vulnerable. > > L2 says that, when there is a discrepancy between the official dealer+vulnerability and what's mentioned on the board, the board takes precedence. While the subject of vulnerability isn't settled by the board (which could result in a fouled board, if for example EW played variable NT and had a mixup in all good faith due to the improper marking), the facts are that South shouldn't be the opener in the official schedule, that there was no indication at all that South was dealer, and that South did open . Therefore, South opened OOT. It has been ruled, however, that somebody who opens because it's one's turn to open on this board according to the L2 schedule, while the board mentions somebody else as opener, doesn't necessarily open OOT. Here, South didn't have this mitigating circumstance at one's disposal. What should have happened : nothing, until somebody asked "whose turn is it ?" and they realized the problem and called the TD. Best regards Alain NB : somebody please tell whether the message format problem is solved ; I changed mailing systems. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 5 11:02:15 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 05:02:15 EST Subject: [blml] Wrong direction Message-ID: >In a message dated 05/11/2007 08:27:49 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: Team play EW/W K AJ9762 KT2 J62 T8642 AQ T85 Q3 ------ J86543 KQT53 A84 J9753 K4 AQ97 97 At one table they put the board in the wrong direction and looked at the cards. This board had been played in the other room. 3DX down 4 by East. 1100 Normal results are 3-4H down 2-3 by North. How do you solve this problem? Kindly refer to used Law or other regulation.< This happened recently in the Lederer, in England, and I think the relevant part of the White Book (12.6, p31) is this: "If team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an infraction by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then the non-offenders are entitled to an assigned adjusted score under Law 72B1 ? see #72.1. However, from the statement by Torsten in the original posting, "they put the board in the wrong direction". Presumably this means both pairs at the second table misboarded it, and therefore there were no "non-offenders". The EBU confirmed this interpretation at the time, and a substitute board needs to be played (if time allows). John Probst would be right if the offenders were the team getting the bad result in the other room. If neither pair (or both pairs, as here) is to blame: "However, if team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an outside influence or an unlucky event not caused by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then team A get no benefit from their good or lucky result since team B have committed no infraction. This is called "rub-of-the-green". This does not defend against the Turner Coup (named after the former director of the CIA who was a keen bridge player), where one of the team getting a bad result uses slight of hand to rotate the wallet by 90 degrees when putting back his cards before the three other hands are replaced in room 1. The director assumes when he gets a result in board 2 that it must have been misboarded by both pairs on the second occasion! Paul From Gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 5 11:15:09 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 05:15:09 EST Subject: [blml] Wrong direction Message-ID: I will try again with typos and formatting corrected!: >In a message dated 05/11/2007 08:27:49 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: Team play EW/W ........................K ........................AJ9762 ........................KT2 ........................J62 T8642 AQ T85 Q3 ------ J86543 KQT53 A84 .........................J9753 ..........................K4 ..........................AQ97 ..........................97 At one table they put the board in the wrong direction and looked at the cards. This board had been played in the other room. 3DX down 4 by East. 1100 Normal results are 3-4H down 2-3 by North. How do you solve this problem? Kindly refer to used Law or other regulation.< This happened recently in the Lederer, in England, and I think the relevant part of the White Book (12.6, p31) is this: "If team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an infraction by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then the non-offenders are entitled to an assigned adjusted score under Law 72B1 ? see #72.1. However, from the statement by Torsten in the original posting, "they put the board in the wrong direction". Presumably this means both pairs at the second table misboarded it, and therefore there were no "non-offenders". The EBU confirmed this interpretation at the time, and a substitute board needs to be played (if time allows). John Probst would be right if the offenders were the team getting the bad result in the other room. If neither pair (or both pairs, as here) is to blame: "However, if team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an outside influence or an unlucky event not caused by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then team A get no benefit from their good or lucky result since team B have committed no infraction. This is called "rub-of-the-green". This does not defend against the Turner Coup (named after the former director of the CIA who was a keen bridge player), where one of the team getting a bad result uses sleight of hand to rotate the wallet by 90 degrees when putting back his cards before the three other hands are replaced in room 1. The director assumes when he gets a result in room 2 that it must have been misboarded by both pairs on the second occasion! Paul From torsten.astrand at telia.com Mon Nov 5 11:16:55 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?utf-8?Q?Torsten_=C3=85strand?=) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:16:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: Message-ID: <001501c81f94$fe8e0400$04000100@home4paplwv76s> In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. I.e. placed and played correctly. Will that influence your answer? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > >In a message dated 05/11/2007 08:27:49 GMT Standard Time, > >john at asimere.com > writes: > Team play > EW/W > K > AJ9762 > KT2 > J62 > T8642 AQ > T85 Q3 > ------ J86543 > KQT53 A84 > J9753 > K4 > AQ97 > 97 > > At one table they put the board in the wrong direction and looked at the > cards. This board had been played in the other room. 3DX down 4 by East. > 1100 > > Normal results are 3-4H down 2-3 by North. > > How do you solve this problem? Kindly refer to used Law or other > regulation.< > > This happened recently in the Lederer, in England, and I think the > relevant > part of the White Book (12.6, p31) is this: > > "If team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an > infraction by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then > the > non-offenders are entitled to an assigned adjusted score under Law 72B1 ? > see > #72.1. > > However, from the statement by Torsten in the original posting, "they put > the board in the wrong direction". Presumably this means both pairs at the > second table misboarded it, and therefore there were no "non-offenders". > The EBU > confirmed this interpretation at the time, and a substitute board needs > to be > played (if time allows). John Probst would be right if the offenders were > the team getting the bad result in the other room. If neither pair (or > both > pairs, as here) is to blame: > > "However, if team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because > of an outside influence or an unlucky event not caused by team B, the > board > cannot be played at the second table, then team A get no benefit from > their good > or lucky result > since team B have committed no infraction. This is called > "rub-of-the-green". > > This does not defend against the Turner Coup (named after the former > director of the CIA who was a keen bridge player), where one of the team > getting a > bad result uses slight of hand to rotate the wallet by 90 degrees when > putting > back his cards before the three other hands are replaced in room 1. The > director assumes when he gets a result in board 2 that it must have been > misboarded by both pairs on the second occasion! > > Paul > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 5 11:41:29 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:41:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer In-Reply-To: <472EE6A7.1020903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c81f98$6cda8750$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ......... > NB : somebody please tell whether the message format problem is solved ; > I changed mailing systems. This looks good! Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 5 11:48:47 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:48:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: <001501c81f94$fe8e0400$04000100@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <00ae01c81f99$96cbdfe0$3cca403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torsten ?strand" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. I.e. > placed and played correctly. > Will that influence your answer? > +=+ Law 7D provides that any contestant remaining at the table throughout a session is responsible. If both pairs are at the table for the session then both sides are responsible. What is a 'session' in this case? What is the nature of the contest? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 5 15:33:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:33:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] An EBU L&E decision. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ABB3BE7-5084-47A8-8345-B2CCAB98AED9@starpower.net> On Nov 3, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Those rules sound fun too. As it is the silly season, and as a light > diversion from discussion of the new laws, here are our 24 boards > for our Social: One you might try if you're looking for a new idea is "bridge bridge": the partner of the player who wins the trick leads to the next trick. It turns out to be a reasonably interesting variant, introducing new concepts like "cross-cashing" and "running ruffs". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 5 16:20:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:20:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <006301c81edd$fcbed670$66c9403e@Hellen> References: <006301c81edd$fcbed670$66c9403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <0DB1BDCA-B510-4FBE-A86B-4FCAEF24B590@starpower.net> On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> But it no longer appears in the footnote. That >> raises a new concern: not whether a player's >> ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether >> "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from >> which the refererence to it has been expunged. >> Tim's point, as I understand it, is that while it >> may be true that it is no longer relevant to the >> consideration of plays that are careless or >> inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration >> of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes >> when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I wonder whether what is not being absorbed > here is the requirement in the substantive law that > the Director shall only postulate plays that are, in > bridge terms without reference to the class of player, > normal. If a play would be abnormal whoever might > make it then the Director is not entitled to consider it. > To that extent irrational plays would be excluded > from the Director's mind. That is not being absorbed because that is not what it says. What it says is that "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior". Which means that "normal" includes play that is any of (a) "dictionary" normal, i.e. plays that would be considered normal were there no footnote, (b) careless, or (c) inferior. Which means that it excludes only play that is none of (a), (b) or (c). Very few "irrational" plays, however defined, would qualify as none of (a), (b) or (c). Grattan's suggested criterion is precisely what the 1997 laws, as written, called for. If that was the WBFLC's intent, there was no need to change the footnote; all it needed was to be "un- reinterpreted". If it was felt that clarification was needed, they could have used Grattan's words above, leaving the existing words unchanged but (redundantly) appending "without reference to the class of player". Or simply deleted "for the class of player involved". Moreover, if such an exception were implicit in the new footnote, as Grattan suggests, it would surely not appear explicitly in L70E. The author(s) of L70E must have meant *something* by putting it there, and it must be something that they didn't intend should apply to L70D or L71. I don't understand how TDs are supposed to "absorb" this implicit exception for irrational plays in contexts in which neither of the words "rational" nor "irrational" appears in the relevant law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 5 16:31:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:31:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dealer or no dealer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <305ECE9A-37A6-49BA-B6DF-EEB56CA3A0CB@starpower.net> On Nov 4, 2007, at 9:38 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Some sets of duplicate boards have stickers next to the pockets, > identifying the > dealer and vulnerability. The absence of a sticker indicates that > the player is > not the dealer and is not vulnerable. On one such board 4, the > sticker for West > as Dealer-VUL is missing, so there is no dealer marked. The second > time the > board is played (so a redeal or replacement board is not possible), > South opens > out of turn. Do you enforce a penalty for an opening bid out of turn? You bet I do! "The absense of a sticker indicates that the player is not the dealer." There was no sticker, and he chose to call first. He gets a firm lecture about calling the director the next time. > L2 doesn't help here; it says that the board must be played as > marked, which > would imply that it must be played with no dealer, and with East > vulnerable but > West not vulnerable. L9C helps. It is an infraction to attempt to correct an irregularity on one's own without calling the director. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 5 16:35:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:35:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Three words for Alain In-Reply-To: <472EE6A7.1020903@ulb.ac.be> References: <472EE6A7.1020903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > NB : somebody please tell whether the message format problem is > solved ; > I changed mailing systems. Yes! Thank you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 6 02:46:29 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:46:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <200710241454.l9OEsx4W010457@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710241454.l9OEsx4W010457@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > 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. Indeed. > Although your partner will obviously notice any > such activity he is prohibited from selecting any action among alternatives > based on his knowledge of it. If the information is UI and suggests one action over another, partner may be _required_ to take it into account (1997 L16A). > "Such action" includes varying partnership > understandings. Probably true. > 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. What about _opponents'_ questions? I gave the example of our artificial 1D bid. Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall. Of course we ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never discussed your kind of 1D bid." Why can't we vary our agreements according to whether the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D. (We know perfectly well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on whether he asked about 1D or not.) From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 6 02:55:52 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:55:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 - some nitty gritty In-Reply-To: <200710302047.l9UKlKq4005447@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200710302047.l9UKlKq4005447@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <472FC9A8.4050109@nhcc.net> >>>>1D - 1S - 1H. Responder missed the 1S overcall. > From: Eric Landau > Since the key question in Steve's case is whether double shows four > hearts in his partnership, the TD will ask them. Most partnerships will answer "yes," but of course the true answer for most will be "no." Nigel gave a good example: S:xx H:Axx D:Axxxx C:xxx Maybe make the hearts a little stronger, weakening the diamonds so 2D is still an overbid. I predict most players will in fact double with some hands of this type, but they will also say the double "shows" four hearts. Is double to be allowed as a penalty-free (new L27C) replacement for the 1H IB? There is still, in general, the problem of finding out what the player's intent was. Some have suggested the TD should ask the player (away from the table), but I'm not convinced. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 6 03:02:11 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:02:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: <200711051623.lA5GNLjf029642@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711051623.lA5GNLjf029642@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <472FCB23.6090801@nhcc.net> > From: Torsten ??strand > In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. I.e. placed and played > correctly. You still haven't made it clear exactly what happened. I gather: 1. EW at Table 1 got a horrible result. 2. Teammate N at Table 2 rotated the board. Was it rotated 90 degrees or 180? If the latter, why not let the board be played? If the rotation was 90 degrees, the normal thing would be to give NS at table 2 avg-, EW avg+, and disregard the result at Table 1. (In most jurisdictions, the NS and EW pairs are equally responsible for the correct board position, so the board would either be replaced with a substitute or scored avg for both sides.) However, if and only if there is some way T2 N "could have known" about the EW result at the other table, you use L72B1 and give an _assigned_ adjusted score at T2. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 6 05:51:57 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 04:51:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <472A105D.3060201@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Guthrie wrote: [B] Define a simple coherent playable subset of agreements as a *standard system* Well, no. As has been noted many times before, this would require beginners to learn an entire system apart from the one they are learning. Having a worldwide system would be bad in other ways, too. How many people in North America can find partners willing to play anything other than 5-card majors, strong NT and 2/1 at least promising another bid? Do we want adherence to the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding System (or any other system) to become a worldwide default? I don't think so. People who have the desire and opportunity to play in other countries can investigate the alert regulations there. The British have no problem with it, and I suspect that this is the case all over Europe. Americans would very rarely have the problem. So who would be served by such an arrangement? Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071106/41dec33d/attachment-0001.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 6 06:00:41 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 05:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <563151.46482.qm@web86115.mail.ird.yahoo.com> What about _opponents'_ questions? I gave the example of our artificial 1D bid. Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall. Of course we ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never discussed your kind of 1D bid." Why can't we vary our agreements according to whether the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D. (We know perfectly well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on whether he asked about 1D or not.) This cannot be right. It is normal to assume that the opponents know what our bids mean. Doing what Steve suggests here would surely be making use of extraneous information. And it would be a difficult system to play with screens... Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071106/9a7b079b/attachment-0001.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 6 06:13:08 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 05:13:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: <001501c81f94$fe8e0400$04000100@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <360970.15244.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> This reminds me of a recent incident. In the Brunel Trophy, the wallet was apparently not placed at an angle of exactly 45 degrees to the table, and both my partner and one of the opponents took out the wrong cards and looked at them. We told our teammates that the board was void, and they were disappointed, as they had apparently had a good result. As there was a double infraction, no one every considered any solution except for a void board. But... this was a multiple teams event, and my partner and I were N/S. Wallets can be a little confusing. We were stationary. Would we have been at fault if the wallet had been placed so that the angle was not precise and it looked to an opponent as if one of our hands was his, and he took it out? Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071106/9f640c6d/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 6 06:19:00 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 05:19:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <23177.71653.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> This does not defend against the Turner Coup (named after the former director of the CIA who was a keen bridge player), where one of the team getting a bad result uses sleight of hand to rotate the wallet by 90 degrees when putting back his cards before the three other hands are replaced in room 1. The director assumes when he gets a result in room 2 that it must have been misboarded by both pairs on the second occasion! Paul Ah, I stand by my statement in my last post that wallents can be confusing! I suppose that everyone has heard of the little manoeuvre whereby you can tell (if the second table playing the board) that the slam fails if your opponents do not have to sort their cards? Of course, this can always be foiled if you count your cards in a way as to change their order. Cheers Stefanie Rohan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071106/296d587e/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 6 07:22:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:22:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c8203d$60b752a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > 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. > > Indeed. > > > Although your partner will obviously notice any > > such activity he is prohibited from selecting any action among > alternatives > > based on his knowledge of it. > > If the information is UI and suggests one action over another, partner > may be _required_ to take it into account (1997 L16A). > > > "Such action" includes varying partnership > > understandings. > > Probably true. > > > 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. > > What about _opponents'_ questions? I gave the example of our artificial > 1D bid. Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall. Of course we > ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never discussed your > kind of 1D bid." Why can't we vary our agreements according to whether > the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D. (We know perfectly > well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on > whether he asked about 1D or not.) Would you classify the information that opponents ask questions as included in "information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents" or as: "other extraneous information"? IMO calling it "mannerism" is far fetched. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Tue Nov 6 07:24:43 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:24:43 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> In the case of Japan, our system and alert regulations are available in English at the following: http://www.jcbl.or.jp/english/tournament.html#03 Obviously visitors from overseas will deviate from the alerting regs once in a while till they get used to them, and no one will penalize them or get mad at them as long as they act in good faith, but it's reasonable to expect that players visiting any country will do the best they can to comply with that country's procedures, as long as the rules are properly written up and available. I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global standard system. -Bob Stefanie Rohan ????????: > > >Guthrie wrote: >[B] Define a simple coherent playable subset of agreements as a >*standard system* > >Well, no. As has been noted many times before, this would require beginners to learn an entire system apart from the one they are learning. Having a worldwide system would be bad in other ways, too. How many people in North America can find partners willing to play anything other than 5-card majors, strong NT and 2/1 at least promising another bid? Do we want adherence to the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding System (or any other system) to become a worldwide default? I don't think so. People who have the desire and opportunity to play in other countries can investigate the alert regulations there. The British have no problem with it, and I suspect that this is the case all over Europe. Americans would very rarely have the problem. So who would be served by such an arrangement? > >Cheers > >Stefanie Rohan >______________________________________________________________________ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 6 07:52:45 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:52:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <563151.46482.qm@web86115.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501c82041$a361ae30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > And it would be a difficult system to play with screens... There is a very simple rule of the thumb: Any information that would be unavailable to a player if playing with screens is always "extraneous" to him. (This is not to say that such information is automatically authorized when it would be available also when playing with screens.) regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 6 09:31:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:31:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> References: <200710241454.l9OEsx4W010457@cfa.harvard.edu> <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47302655.6070009@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Sven Pran" >> 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. > > Indeed. > >> Although your partner will obviously notice any >> such activity he is prohibited from selecting any action among alternatives >> based on his knowledge of it. > > If the information is UI and suggests one action over another, partner > may be _required_ to take it into account (1997 L16A). > >> "Such action" includes varying partnership >> understandings. > > Probably true. > Not completely true, since L16 only talks about "calls and plays" not about "actions". Of course, in the sense that the next bid is varied according to this new partnership understanding, making that call is subject to L16, so, indeed, varying the partnership understanding is prohibited "on the rebound". >> 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. > > What about _opponents'_ questions? I gave the example of our artificial > 1D bid. Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall. Of course we > ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never discussed your > kind of 1D bid." Why can't we vary our agreements according to whether > the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D. (We know perfectly > well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on > whether he asked about 1D or not.) > In the sense that from his not asking, you determine what he intended, you are allowed to vary your system on his meaning. Depending the meaning of your next bid on his asking or not can be a problem - because he might well know without asking. Then, to depend on your asking is like changing your system according to something else than the condition on the board, which is expressly forbidden. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 10:00:19 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:00:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <47302655.6070009@skynet.be> References: <200710241454.l9OEsx4W010457@cfa.harvard.edu> <472FC775.3070901@nhcc.net> <47302655.6070009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47302D23.1050806@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Not completely true, since L16 only talks about "calls and plays" not > about "actions". Of course, in the sense that the next bid is varied > according to this new partnership understanding, making that call is > subject to L16, so, indeed, varying the partnership understanding is > prohibited "on the rebound". > > I'm a bit perplexed about this one. Gilles and myself have different defenses against "normal" and strong 1C openings, as who would not ? What about more intricated 1C openings, like Polish, Roman, Carroti, Vienna, Perron etc ? Our default agreement is "if it is forcing, apply the defense vs 1C strong, else apply the defense vs 1C natural". When we didn't discuss the defense before the round, and they alert 1C, we ask about the meaning, then, if it wasn't obvious from the explanation, we ask whether the bid is forcing or not. Then we apply the /ad hoc/ defense. You seem to state that this is disallowed. What, then, is the right way to proceed ? (note that there was a problem, behind screens, when one player said that 1C was forcing and the other that it could be passed once in a while if weak with long clubs) Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 6 11:03:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:03:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <47302D23.1050806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8205c$49f9b200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ........... > Gilles and myself have different defenses against "normal" and strong 1C > openings, as who would not ? > What about more intricated 1C openings, like Polish, Roman, Carroti, > Vienna, Perron etc ? > Our default agreement is "if it is forcing, apply the defense vs 1C > strong, else apply the defense vs 1C natural". > > When we didn't discuss the defense before the round, and they alert 1C, > we ask about the meaning, then, if it wasn't obvious from the > explanation, we ask whether the bid is forcing or not. > Then we apply the /ad hoc/ defense. > > You seem to state that this is disallowed. > > What, then, is the right way to proceed ? The correct procedure is for you and your partner, independently of each other, to ascertain for each of your own satisfaction which defense to apply. You can do so from already knowing or from asking your opponents, but strictly speaking you may not do so from your partner asking or not asking. (It is improper by you two to cooperate in any way during the auction for this purpose.) However, as when playing without screens you should expect the answer to your possible question to be identical to the answer you heard been given to your partner asking the same question, the information from this answer is fully authorized also to you. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 6 17:02:59 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:02:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <000001c8205c$49f9b200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8205c$49f9b200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <856F35C0-70D5-4B0E-ADEA-697E61D7DAEB@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > However, as when playing without screens you should expect the > answer to > your possible question to be identical to the answer you heard been > given to > your partner asking the same question, the information from this > answer is > fully authorized also to you. Well, the alternative would be "1C".."Alert".."Explain please" (from partner).,........"Would you explain your auction please?" (or, more likely, at least around here, "what's 1C?") from player. Yeah, that'll go over well. :-/ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 6 17:09:02 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:09:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <006301c81edd$fcbed670$66c9403e@Hellen> <0DB1BDCA-B510-4FBE-A86B-4FCAEF24B590@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c8208f$f9287710$3ccb403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' > On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > (Eric): >>> But it no longer appears in the footnote. That >>> raises a new concern: not whether a player's >>> ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether >>> "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from >>> which the refererence to it has been expunged. >>> Tim's point, as I understand it, is that while it >>> may be true that it is no longer relevant to the >>> consideration of plays that are careless or >>> inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration >>> of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes >>> when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> (Grattan) >> +=+ I wonder whether what is not being absorbed >> here is the requirement in the substantive law that >> the Director shall only postulate plays that are, in >> bridge terms without reference to the class of player, >> normal. If a play would be abnormal whoever might >> make it then the Director is not entitled to consider it. >> To that extent irrational plays would be excluded >> from the Director's mind. > (Eric): > That is not being absorbed because that is not what it says. What it > says is that "'normal' includes play that would be careless or > inferior". Which means that "normal" includes play that is any of > (a) "dictionary" normal, i.e. plays that would be considered normal > were there no footnote, (b) careless, or (c) inferior. Which means > that it excludes only play that is none of (a), (b) or (c). Very few > "irrational" plays, however defined, would qualify as none of (a), > (b) or (c). > > Grattan's suggested criterion is precisely what the 1997 laws, as > written, called for. If that was the WBFLC's intent, there was no > need to change the footnote; all it needed was to be "un- > reinterpreted". If it was felt that clarification was needed, they > could have used Grattan's words above, leaving the existing words > unchanged but (redundantly) appending "without reference to the class > of player". Or simply deleted "for the class of player involved". > > Moreover, if such an exception were implicit in the new footnote, as > Grattan suggests, it would surely not appear explicitly in L70E. The > author(s) of L70E must have meant *something* by putting it there, > and it must be something that they didn't intend should apply to L70D > or L71. > > I don't understand how TDs are supposed to "absorb" this implicit > exception for irrational plays in contexts in which neither of the > words "rational" nor "irrational" appears in the relevant law. > +=+ Not quite what I said. My view is that the word 'normal' excludes the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do have an anxiety. I know that in removing 'irrational' from the footnote and relying upon the meaning of 'normal' (in the Law itself) the intention was to exclude consideration of any play that, for any and every player, is irrational. Whether this needs be further clarified is not something that one of us alone can decide, but my inclination is to wish that there may be no doubt of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 6 20:00:44 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:00:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Robert Geller" > I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, > rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global standard > system. > Are there any other games of importance for which local rules are free to differ (officially) from a global standard? I can't think of any, and don't see why bridge should be different. Well, basketball does have two standards, but only two. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 20:06:04 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:06:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> Off the top of my head: Baseball (designated hitters) Basketball (legality of zone defenses) I'm sure there are similar differences for any number of different sports On 11/6/07, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Geller" > > > I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, > > rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global > standard > > system. > > > Are there any other games of importance for which local rules are free > to differ (officially) from a global standard? I can't think of any, > and don't see why bridge should be different. Well, basketball does > have two standards, but only two. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From torsten.astrand at telia.com Tue Nov 6 23:10:49 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: <200711051623.lA5GNLjf029642@cfa.harvard.edu> <472FCB23.6090801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000e01c820c1$e3a88bf0$218ee151@home4paplwv76s> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > From: Torsten ??strand > In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. I.e. placed and played > correctly. You still haven't made it clear exactly what happened. I gather: 1. EW at Table 1 got a horrible result. 2. Teammate N at Table 2 rotated the board. Was it rotated 90 degrees or 180? If the latter, why not let the board be played? If the rotation was 90 degrees, the normal thing would be to give NS at table 2 avg-, EW avg+, and disregard the result at Table 1. (In most jurisdictions, the NS and EW pairs are equally responsible for the correct board position, so the board would either be replaced with a substitute or scored avg for both sides.) However, if and only if there is some way T2 N "could have known" about the EW result at the other table, you use L72B1 and give an _assigned_ adjusted score at T2. Rotated 90 degrees correct. In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 23:13:16 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:13:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:24:43 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, > rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global > standard system. > Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that it's *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. Brian. -- From geller at nifty.com Tue Nov 6 23:23:31 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:31 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200711062223.AA11329@geller204.nifty.com> Marvin French ????????: >Are there any other games of importance for which local rules are free >to differ (officially) from a global standard? I can't think of any, >and don't see why bridge should be different. Well, basketball does >have two standards, but only two. In baseball the designated hitter rule is used in some leagues (US American League, Japanese Pacific League) but not others (US National League, Japanese Central League). Furthermore, there are unique "ground rules" in each ballpark depending on local conditions (for example, what happens when a ball gets lost in the ivy covering the walls in Chicago's Wrigley Field). In football (called soccer in some nations, not even the name of the game is a global standard!), the size the the field is not standardized "The field is rectangular and may vary in size. In international competition, it measures from 100 to 130 yards (91 to 119 meters) long and from 50 to 100 yards (46 to 91 meters) wide." In gridiron football ("American football") the length of the field differs in the US and Canadian Leagues (100 yards vs 110 yards). The overtime rules for resolving tied games are different in US college football and professional football. IMO the alerting rules in bridge (variable in each country) are comparable to ground rules in baseball. For example, if ivy covered walls were forbidden in baseball parks, then you wouldn't need ground rules for balls lost in ivy. But there would be an uproar from the fans in Chicago if you tried to ban ivy. So baseball is stuck with the special ground rules for Wrigley field. Similarly since standard biddiing differs so much from one country to another local options (ground rules) are inevitable in bridge. If there were standardized rules, would the US, for example, accept the madatory use of multi 2D in ordinary pair and team events if the rest of the world wanted it? Of course not. Almost every other country uses metric weight and length measurements, but pounds and feet and miles are still used in the US. IMO the alerting rules could only be standardized if everyone around the world used the same bidding system. Which isn't the case now, and probably never will be? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Tue Nov 6 23:31:01 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:31:01 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> References: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200711062231.AA11330@geller204.nifty.com> Brian ????????: >Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far >as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the >online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that it's >*their* local regulations that are in force world wide. Each on-line site needs to adopt its own alerting rules, or even better, the various major onlne sites need to adopt a common set of rules. The situation is different for on-line bridge because self-alerting is technically feasible (the oppts but not pard sees the alert). if on-line bridge ever became a major form of competetion then presunably what happens there would heavily influence F2F bridge, but since the security issues are permanently unresolvable (unless the competitors are concentrated at a few heavily monitores sites around the world) this may never happen. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 00:37:46 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:37:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <200711062231.AA11330@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> <200711062231.AA11330@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:31:01 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > Brian ????????: > >Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far > >as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the > >online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that > >it's *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. > > Each on-line site needs to adopt its own alerting rules, or even > better, the various major onlne sites need to adopt a common set of > rules. The online sites on which I've played over the past 12 years (OKBridge then BBO) *DO* adopt their own alerting rules, and at least as far as OKBridge and BBO are concerned, they are almost identical. > The situation is different for on-line bridge because > self-alerting is technically feasible (the oppts but not pard sees > the alert). Yes, I'm well aware of how self-alerting works, but I don't see the relevance. It's not *how* you alert that's the problem, it's *what* you alert. As I said, too many players come from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who only play F2F in their own country don't see it. > if on-line bridge ever became a major form of > competetion then presunably what happens there would heavily > influence F2F bridge, but since the security issues are permanently > unresolvable (unless the competitors are concentrated at a few > heavily monitores sites around the world) this may never happen. > Well, given what I hear of the ACBL's declining membership, I wouldn't put too much money against the online form of the game becoming the more popular, at least in the USA, within the next decade. My local club here in northern Pennsylvania folded due to lack of members about three years ago, and now the nearest club that I know of is over 50 miles away. Brian. -- From mustikka at charter.net Wed Nov 7 01:23:55 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:23:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox><200711062231.AA11330@geller204.nifty.com> <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> Message-ID: <000f01c820d4$7bd7e080$291e5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:31:01 +0900 > Robert Geller wrote: > >> Brian ????????: >> >Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far >> >as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the >> >online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that >> >it's *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. >> >> Each on-line site needs to adopt its own alerting rules, or even >> better, the various major onlne sites need to adopt a common set of >> rules. > > The online sites on which I've played over the past 12 years (OKBridge > then BBO) *DO* adopt their own alerting rules, and at least as far as > OKBridge and BBO are concerned, they are almost identical. > >> The situation is different for on-line bridge because >> self-alerting is technically feasible (the oppts but not pard sees >> the alert). > > Yes, I'm well aware of how self-alerting works, but I don't see the > relevance. It's not *how* you alert that's the problem, it's *what* you > alert. As I said, too many players come from F2F bridge to the online > game with the idea that their local NBO's regulations and common > systems are the world-wide standard, and disabusing them of that notion > can be a right nuisance. There *is* a cost to devolving down to the > national level, even if players who only play F2F in their own country > don't see it. > >> if on-line bridge ever became a major form of >> competetion then presunably what happens there would heavily >> influence F2F bridge, but since the security issues are permanently >> unresolvable (unless the competitors are concentrated at a few >> heavily monitores sites around the world) this may never happen. >> > > Well, given what I hear of the ACBL's declining membership, I wouldn't > put too much money against the online form of the game becoming the more > popular, at least in the USA, within the next decade. My local club > here in northern Pennsylvania folded due to lack of members about three > years ago, and now the nearest club that I know of is over 50 miles > away. > > > Brian. > > -- Online bridge in my estimation *is* already more popular (meaning: more people play it) than F2F. My local bridge club is fading fast, and their only remedy is regular raises of card fees... Of course I don't know anything firsthand about how clubs elsewhere are doing. Raija From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 7 06:44:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:44:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <000f01c820d4$7bd7e080$291e5e47@DFYXB361> References: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> <200711062231.AA11330@geller204.nifty.com> <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <000f01c820d4$7bd7e080$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <0E2D386C-ED88-4BBE-B7BC-49283FB3E1F9@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 6, 2007, at 7:23 PM, raija wrote: > My local bridge club is fading fast, and their > only remedy is regular raises of card fees. Life goes on outside of bridge. Landlords raise rents. What's a club owner to do? Pay the difference out of his own pocket? From ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 16:11:32 2007 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:11:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: <23177.71653.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: (2007 Laws) Law 7 C should thwart this little manoeuvre. Cheers, Ken -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan Sent: 06 November 2007 05:19 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction This does not defend against the Turner Coup (named after the former director of the CIA who was a keen bridge player), where one of the team getting a bad result uses sleight of hand to rotate the wallet by 90 degrees when putting back his cards before the three other hands are replaced in room 1. The director assumes when he gets a result in room 2 that it must have been misboarded by both pairs on the second occasion! Paul Ah, I stand by my statement in my last post that wallents can be confusing! I suppose that everyone has heard of the little manoeuvre whereby you can tell (if the second table playing the board) that the slam fails if your opponents do not have to sort their cards? Of course, this can always be foiled if you count your cards in a way as to change their order. Cheers Stefanie Rohan No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date: 02/11/2007 21:46 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071106/92ef3304/attachment.htm From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Nov 7 10:51:22 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:51:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity Message-ID: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Hi gang, Here is a case I made up to discuss certain incoherencies in the laws. MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this pair of hands: AQJ109x xxx xx xx xxx xxxx xxxx AK West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, East again pitching something red. Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes the king of spades. Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. So obviously we must wheel out L64C. Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? Please reply to this question before reading on. Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. The contract is the same and East revokes just the same in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with the king of spades which he could legally have played to the first spade trick). So this South ends up with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. So at the end of the day the first East benefitted by revoking for the second time. Comments please. For those who want to rule 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted score then please keep in mind that L12C2 says that an assigned adjusted score is "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity occurred at all South would never have taken 9 tricks because it is physically impossible here - even if one drops the king of spades offside. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 11:04:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:04:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: <200711051623.lA5GNLjf029642@cfa.harvard.edu><472FCB23.6090801@nhcc.net> <000e01c820c1$e3a88bf0$218ee151@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <002301c82125$96dc5db0$92ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > From: Torsten ??strand > In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. I.e. placed and played > correctly. You still haven't made it clear exactly what happened. I gather: 1. EW at Table 1 got a horrible result. 2. Teammate N at Table 2 rotated the board. Was it rotated 90 degrees or 180? If the latter, why not let the board be played? If the rotation was 90 degrees, the normal thing would be to give NS at table 2 avg-, EW avg+, and disregard the result at Table 1. (In most jurisdictions, the NS and EW pairs are equally responsible for the correct board position, so the board would either be replaced with a substitute or scored avg for both sides.) However, if and only if there is some way T2 N "could have known" about the EW result at the other table, you use L72B1 and give an _assigned_ adjusted score at T2. Rotated 90 degrees correct. In Sweden is North responsible for the boards. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +=+ I am puzzled that Torsten appears to be saying that in Sweden they set aside Law 7D. Steve appears to have the right approach here. Where was the match played? Who carried the boards? What were the possibilities of communication? These are the kinds of questions to be answered when considering Law 72B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 11:11:42 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:11:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global standard system. [Marvin French] Are there any other games of importance for which local rules are free to differ (officially) from a global standard? I can't think of any, and don't see why bridge should be different. Well, basketball does have two standards, but only two. [Brian Meadows] Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that it's *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. [Richard Willey] Off the top of my head: - Baseball (designated hitters) - Basketball (legality of zone defenses) [Robert Geller] In baseball the designated hitter rule is used in some leagues (US American League, Japanese Pacific League) but not others (US National League, Japanese Central League). Furthermore, there are unique "ground rules" in each ballpark depending on local conditions (for example, what happens when a ball gets lost in the ivy covering the walls in Chicago's Wrigley Field). In football (called soccer in some nations, not even the name of the game is a global standard!), the size the the field is not standardized "The field is rectangular and may vary in size. In international competition, it measures from 100 to 130 yards (91 to 119 meters) long and from 50 to 100 yards (46 to 91 meters) wide." In gridiron football ("American football") the length of the field differs in the US and Canadian Leagues (100 yards vs 110 yards). The overtime rules for resolving tied games are different in US college football and professional football. IMO the alerting rules in bridge (variable in each country) are comparable to ground rules in baseball. For example, if ivy covered walls were forbidden in baseball parks, then you wouldn't need ground rules for balls lost in ivy. But there would be an uproar from the fans in Chicago if you tried to ban ivy. So baseball is stuck with the special ground rules for Wrigley field. Similarly since standard biddiing differs so much from one country to another local options (ground rules) are inevitable in bridge. If there were standardized rules, would the US, for example, accept the mandatory use of multi 2D in ordinary pair and team events if the rest of the world wanted it? Of course not. Almost every other country uses metric weight and length measurements, but pounds and feet and miles are still used in the US. IMO the alerting rules could only be standardized if everyone around the world used the same bidding system. Which isn't the case now, and probably never will be? [Brian Meadows] Well, given what I hear of the ACBL's declining membership, I wouldn't put too much money against the online form of the game becoming the more popular, at least in the USA, within the next decade. My local club here in northern Pennsylvania folded due to lack of members about three years ago, and now the nearest club that I know of is over 50 miles away. [nige3] Thank you all for your interesting and informative comments. Some of the examples given by other Richard Willey and Robert Geller seem of doubtful relevance to Bridge. Some games have no global rule-making body. Bridge rule differences are imposed artificially -- rather than naturally like pitch-size (although, digressing for a moment, I do feel that football pitch sizes *should* be standardised). Whatever happens in other games, the point is that Bridge-players from different jurisdictions often play Bridge against each other and local rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home advantage. A *default* global standard ... - *encourages* local legislations to adopt a level playing field, - rather than *forcing* them to cobble together local regulations. Please note also: the *disclosure* suggestion ... - is *not* that everybody *bids* according to the same system; - it is that we disclose *departures* from the same system. A global standard is an far-off ideal to which we can aspire. As explained earlier, many times, however, you don't need a globally imposed standard system to allow a more comprehensive global set of *basic disclosure rules*. Local standard systems can achieve that sub-goal. It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are the last straw for many would be-players. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 11:38:27 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:38:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <473195A3.7080501@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > Hi gang, > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > incoherencies in the laws. > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > pair of hands: > > AQJ109x > xxx > xx > xx > > xxx > xxxx > xxxx > AK > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, > East again pitching something red. > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count > but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes > the king of spades. > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke > can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? > Please reply to this question before reading on. > > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. > The contract is the same and East revokes just the same > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > the king of spades which he could legally have played > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > by revoking for the second time. > > Comments please. AG : In the second case, East played badly after the revoke. He could have ensured about 8 tricks (depending on red-suit breaks), less 2 for the revoke, for 1NT = . So he lost revoke tricks + tricks in the play. No wonder he scored badly. (Smith signals, anyone ?) The only benefit East got from the second revoke at table 1 was that he wasn't given the chance to err. Rub of the green, an in the case where a MPC ensures one play the "right" suit.. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 11:53:17 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:53:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:51 AM Subject: [blml] About restoring equity Hi gang, Here is a case I made up to discuss certain incoherencies in the laws. MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this pair of hands: AQJ109x xxx xx xx xxx xxxx xxxx AK West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, East again pitching something red. Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes the king of spades. Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. So obviously we must wheel out L64C. Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? Please reply to this question before reading on. Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. The contract is the same and East revokes just the same in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with the king of spades which he could legally have played to the first spade trick). So this South ends up with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. So at the end of the day the first East benefitted by revoking for the second time. Comments please. For those who want to rule 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted score then please keep in mind that L12C2 says that an assigned adjusted score is "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity occurred at all South would never have taken 9 tricks because it is physically impossible here - even if one drops the king of spades offside. +=+ "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side" Adopting this principle the Director must abide by Law 64C and do no more than 'restore equity', which I interpret, following WBF guidelines, as being the score that would have resulted had no irregularity occurred - the King being taken when the suit is first finessed. Further, if it is adjudged that there has been a violation of Law 72B2 a procedural penalty may be assessed on the guilty side, which might be (say) the equivalent of a top on the board. What may have occurred at another table is irrelevant. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 7 11:58:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:58:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: <002301c82125$96dc5db0$92ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801c8212d$2bb0ef80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............. > +=+ I am puzzled that Torsten appears to be saying that in Sweden > they set aside Law 7D. Steve appears to have the right approach here. > Where was the match played? Who carried the boards? What were > the possibilities of communication? These are the kinds of questions > to be answered when considering Law 72B1. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I assume that this is a reminiscence from the 1987 Law 7D which indeed stated that North was responsible for maintaining proper conditions at the table. (We had the same rule in Norway). Extending this responsibility to include for instance the situation where East or West takes their cards from the wrong pocket has always IMO been pulling it too far, but this question has actually been raised here. My ruling at the table would be (both before and after 1997) that each player is responsible for taking his own cards from the correct pocket. Consequently in Torsten's case I consider every player that had taken the wrong cards and looked at them to be at fault. Thus I would give North South the benefit of their side's extremely favourable result at the other table only if they had not taken their cards from the wrong pocket. If both sides took the wrong cards (90 degrees) I would rule the board voided. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 12:06:52 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:06:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f > > A global standard is an far-off ideal to which we can aspire. > > As explained earlier, many times, however, you don't need a globally > imposed standard system to allow a more comprehensive global set of > *basic disclosure rules*. Local standard systems can achieve that > sub-goal. > > It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local > legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it > hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, > incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and > inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are > the last straw for many would be-players. > +=+ I am not sure what is intended by 'beneficiaries' in the above. However, tournament by tournament, I would think that what is most useful to players is alerting or announcement of meanings that are unfamiliar among the players. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 12:09:02 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:09:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20071107060902.0fc28c65@linuxbox> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:11:42 +0000 Guthrie wrote: > It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local > legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find > it hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, > incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and > inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are > the last straw for many would be-players. > What I said in my posting, Nigel, was that local regulations are a pain in the backside when online players incorrectly assume that their own local regulations apply online. Not "the last straw", which implies that some (drastic) action results from it, just a damn nuisance. The rest of what you imply is "my experience" is purely your own view, and you have no justification whatever for suggesting that I share it. I certainly can't remember being on the receiving end of a single ruling that I found "incomprehensible". I've disagreed with a few of them, sure, but I understood what the ruling was and why, even if I thought the reasoning was wrong. I also try hard not to put views in the mouths of others, and *I* certainly wouldn't claim to speak for "Players" in general. Brian. -- From geller at nifty.com Wed Nov 7 11:53:20 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:53:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> References: <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200711071053.AA11340@geller204.nifty.com> Guthrie writes: >Whatever happens in other games, the point is that Bridge-players from >different jurisdictions often play Bridge against each other and local >rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home advantage. Is this really true? For example, every year here in Japan we have an international tourney, the NEC Festival, and I'm not aware of complaints in this area (local rules) from either the overseas or local players. Also, when I've played in international tourneys, such as the Olympiad or Far east (now PABF) championships there haven't been any big problems (this includes playing against MOSCITO, for example) on either side. And when I played in a major event in Poland (Warsaw Grand Prix) in 2003 I didn't perceive any big problems (one of our hosts gave our team a 30 min explanation of "standard bdding" in Poland and was was alerted, and that was more or less ample) either. I can imagine that the further down the pyramid you go (for example, an ordinary weekly game at the local club, rather than a national tourney with many players from out of the country), the "local bias" may get somewhat greater, but is that necessary so terrible? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 12:24:18 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:24:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <4731A062.7010109@ntlworld.com> Konrad Ciborowski Here is a case I made up to discuss certain incoherencies in the laws. MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this pair of hands: S:AQJT9x H:xxx D:xx C:xx S:xxx H:xxxx D:xxxx C:AK West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, East again pitching something red. Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes the king of spades. Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. So obviously we must wheel out L64C. Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? Please reply to this question before reading on. Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. The contract is the same and East revokes just the same in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with the king of spades which he could legally have played to the first spade trick). So this South ends up with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. So at the end of the day the first East benefitted by revoking for the second time. Comments please. For those who want to rule 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted score then please keep in mind that L12C2 says that an assigned adjusted score is "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity occurred at all South would never have taken 9 tricks because it is physically impossible here - even if one drops the king of spades offside. [nige1] Grattan Endicott and Alain Gottcheiner have persuaded me that their ruling is correct (provided the second revoke was not deliberate). Konrad is right that the ruling does not appear to be "equitable" in the discredited law-book sense. Much more importantly, however, from a player's view-point: it is objective, consistent and understandable. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Nov 7 12:24:10 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt at t-online.de) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:24:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?About_restoring_equity?= In-Reply-To: <002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> > > Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************** > "Small talk dies in agonies." > ~ Shelley > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > Hi gang, > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > incoherencies in the laws. > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > pair of hands: > > AQJ109x > xxx > xx > xx > > xxx > xxxx > xxxx > AK > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, > East again pitching something red. > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count but > this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes the > king of spades. > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke > can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? > Please reply to this question before reading on. > > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. > The contract is the same and East revokes just the same > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > the king of spades which he could legally have played > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > by revoking for the second time. > > Comments please. For those who want to rule > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > says that an assigned adjusted score is > "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > even if one drops the king of spades offside. > > +=+ "The Director may not award an adjusted score > on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws > is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side" > Adopting this principle the Director must abide by > Law 64C and do no more than 'restore equity', which > I interpret, following WBF guidelines, as being the > score that would have resulted had no irregularity > occurred - the King being taken when the suit is first > finessed. Further, if it is adjudged that there has been > a violation of Law 72B2 a procedural penalty may be > assessed on the guilty side, which might be (say) the > equivalent of a top on the board. > What may have occurred at another table is > irrelevant. > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ Peter Eidt: I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the EBL that we have to deal with every revoke on it's own merit. The first revoke leads to a 2 trick penalty (Law 64 A2); there is no need for Law 64 C in this case, as the 2 tricks do compensate the damage of this revoke. The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64 B2). But here the revoke destroys the communication between hand and dummy and results in damage for the non-offending side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond revoke (all black tricks that remain after cashing the reds, max. 7) Now the 2 penalty-tricks for the first revoke are added to a maximum of 9 tricks. This approach also solves the problem of 'unfairness' regarding the outcome of the hand whether the revoker makes a second revoke or not. Regards Peter From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 7 12:31:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:31:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <000901c82131$c6338b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > Hi gang, > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > incoherencies in the laws. > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > pair of hands: > > AQJ109x > xxx > xx > xx > > xxx > xxxx > xxxx > AK > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, > East again pitching something red. > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count > but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes > the king of spades. > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke > can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? > Please reply to this question before reading on. Five of course. Equity is to be established according to the situation at the moment of the first irregularity, i.e. when South had just played the S9 from dummy. > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. > The contract is the same and East revokes just the same > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > the king of spades which he could legally have played > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > by revoking for the second time. > > Comments please. For those who want to rule > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > says that an assigned adjusted score is > "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > even if one drops the king of spades offside. I wonder how the red suits should be distributed since West made an invitational lead in Clubs instead of leading a Heart or a Diamond and it apparently never occurred to East to attack in either red suit? Incidentally, I would also like to see a reasonably sane auction for South to end up as declarer in 1NT? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 12:43:48 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:43:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <4731A062.7010109@ntlworld.com> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4731A062.7010109@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4731A4F4.8090502@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Konrad is right that the ruling does not appear to be "equitable" in > the discredited law-book sense. Much more importantly, however, from > a player's view-point: it is objective, consistent and understandable. > > > The technical word is "intersubjective", i.e. anyone given the case, the set of laws and reasoninng capabilities should come to the same ruling. There is, however, that last problem : most "second revoke" cases can lead to invoking L72B1, to such a point that the "no penalty" in L64B2 is almost void if one is to take L72B1 literally. And, precisely, L72B1 is among the most subjective and least intersubjective. Best regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 12:52:07 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:52:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071107060902.0fc28c65@linuxbox> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> <20071107060902.0fc28c65@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4731A6E7.6040306@ntlworld.com> [Brian Meadows 1] Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that it's *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. [Brian 2] Well, given what I hear of the ACBL's declining membership, I wouldn't put too much money against the online form of the game becoming the more popular, at least in the USA, within the next decade. My local club here in northern Pennsylvania folded due to lack of members about three years ago, and now the nearest club that I know of is over 50 miles away. [nige1] It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are the last straw for many would be-players. [Brian 3] What I said in my posting, Nigel, was that local regulations are a pain in the backside when online players incorrectly assume that their own local regulations apply online. Not "the last straw", which implies that some (drastic) action results from it, just a damn nuisance. The rest of what you imply is "my experience" is purely your own view, and you have no justification whatever for suggesting that I share it. I certainly can't remember being on the receiving end of a single ruling that I found "incomprehensible". I've disagreed with a few of them, sure, but I understood what the ruling was and why, even if I thought the reasoning was wrong. I also try hard not to put views in the mouths of others, and *I* certainly wouldn't claim to speak for "Players" in general. [nige1] My original post quoted Brian's views verbatim, about on-line legal disputes, clubs folding and falling ACBL membership. I then made an honest attempt to summarise what I understood to be Brian's views relevant to my argument. (I've requoted them above). I apologise, Brian, for misinterpreting your opinions. I also concede that Bridge is just a game and perhaps "the last straw" is too emotive a metaphor to describe why some players decide not to continue playing it. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 13:41:21 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:41:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> <004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> [nige1] It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are the last straw for many would be-players. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I am not sure what is intended by 'beneficiaries' in the above. However, tournament by tournament, I would think that what is most useful to players is alerting or announcement of meanings that are unfamiliar among the players.+=+ [nige2] By "local beneficiaries" I meant those local players who are ... - familiar with the idiosyncracies of local disclosure regulations and - enjoying favourite methods that have been locally licensed. I understand Grattan's point: I accept that not all local players are familiar with the subtleties of local methods. Strangers and foreigners, however, ... - are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods; - on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards* - they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*. As well as this information famine, foreigners have to play with favourite clubs removed from their bidding-bag. I concede that it depends on what you judge to be "equity". It also depends on perception. For example, Bob Geller believes that this results in "no big problem". Maybe so. Big or small, however, there seems to no need to impose such artificial handicaps. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 14:56:16 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:56:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><4731A062.7010109@ntlworld.com> <4731A4F4.8090502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004001c82146$157d7530$e9d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity There is, however, that last problem : most "second revoke" cases can lead to invoking L72B1, to such a point that the "no penalty" in L64B2 is almost void if one is to take L72B1 literally. And, precisely, L72B1 is among the most subjective and least intersubjective. +=+ In such a context I wonder how you regard the revised wording in 2007 Law 23 ? There was some agonising over the precise terms in which this law should be set (but not at all in respect of the principle). The other aspect of 2007 law relating to restoration of equity is the definition of the purpose of score adjustment (see Law 12B1). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 15:15:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:15:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <000901c82131$c6338b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000901c82131$c6338b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4731C871.2070203@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Incidentally, I would also like to see a reasonably sane auction for South > to end up as declarer in 1NT? > > IIRC, it's a made up case, but I can suggest : 1C 1S X 1NT X p p p From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 15:32:58 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:32:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> <004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0711070632j3bc041f2qd8ee641ddb1fc9be@mail.gmail.com> > I understand Grattan's point: I accept that not all local players are > familiar with the subtleties of local methods. > > Strangers and foreigners, however, ... > - are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods; > - on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards* > - they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*. Nigel: I really think that you are projecting a very idiosyncratic set of concerns onto the population at large. Do you have any reliable estimate regarding what fraction of bridge players are being terribly inconvenienced by the need to constantly master foreign convention cards and alert structures? (Personally, I don't think that the numbers are that large. Moreover, I suspect that the players who would be most effected - pros and the like - are also the ones who are most likely to be able to cope with these types of issues) Equally significant, do you recognize that the "cure" that you recommend will force almost everyone in the world to learn yet another new alerting structure. You constently fail to recognize that YOUR CURE IS THE DISEASE ITSELF. A few posts back, you noted how upset foreign visitors are when they travel into a new land and are suddently deprived of their favorite conventions. Your solution to to take away those conventions at home and abroad... And somehow you think that people are going to welcome this change... Please note: I have some small degree of sympathy for your ideas. However, I think that you are going about things completely the wrong way. You seem fixated on a grandious project to impose a new regime from on high, as if the WBF has any real power. Get this through your thick skull: This isn't going to ever happen. The only way that a scheme like this one could ever work would be if some kind of common bidding system was already in widespread use. If 90% of the players in country XYZ all played the exact same set of methods you MIGHT be able to implement the standard alert system that you so dearly love. I recommend taking a good look at countries that have fairly homogeneous bididng methods (France would be an obvious example). Look at their alerting structures and see whether they adhere to you ideal. Feel free to come back and tell us what you learn. I also recommend looking at alerting structures in the US that used to be based on departures from a norm and try to understand why the ACBL moved away from this scheme. Once you reach some conclusions, it might be worth while considering whether it would ever be possible to get bridge teachers to adhere to a common teaching curriculeum. But whatever you do, please stop tilting at windmills. Its incredibly sad to watch. From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 7 16:28:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:28:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <4731C871.2070203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c82152$de1aeac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Incidentally, I would also like to see a reasonably sane auction for > South > > to end up as declarer in 1NT? > > > > > > IIRC, it's a made up case, but I can suggest : > > 1C 1S X 1NT > X p p p Sorry, I do not accept this as a reasonably sane auction; South's bid of 1NT is IMO wild and gambling. If the double by East is negative then South has no reason to bid anything and if it is for penalty he has no help to offer partner with his "escape" to 1NT, rather the opposite. (And what about the missing attacks in the red suits by opponents?) Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 7 16:35:04 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:35:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com><004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002d01c82153$c50a2e00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f > [nige1] > It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local > legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it > hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, > incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and > inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are > the last straw for many would be-players. > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I am not sure what is intended by 'beneficiaries' in the above. > However, tournament by tournament, I would think that what is > most useful to players is alerting or announcement of meanings > that are unfamiliar among the players.+=+ > > [nige2] > By "local beneficiaries" I meant those local players who are ... > - familiar with the idiosyncracies of local disclosure regulations and > - enjoying favourite methods that have been locally licensed. > > I understand Grattan's point: I accept that not all local players are > familiar with the subtleties of local methods. > > Strangers and foreigners, however, ... > - are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods; > - on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards* > - they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*. > > As well as this information famine, foreigners have to play with > favourite clubs removed from their bidding-bag. Nigel, you're on bollox again. When I go to France I play mini. Frog baiting is a traditional English sport.. It's not a question of having clubs removed. It's a projectile cannon that can reach the green of a par 5. There's no b***dy problem playing in different areas, the locals are just as screwed by your methods as you are by theirs. it's what makes bridge fun. Screwing the Frogs over as we have for the last 800 years is a sport you'd try to stop. Sheesh, you're not even a friggin Englishman if you do that. John > > I concede that it depends on what you judge to be "equity". > > It also depends on perception. For example, Bob Geller believes that > this results in "no big problem". Maybe so. Big or small, however, > there seems to no need to impose such artificial handicaps. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 16:47:16 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:47:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0711070632j3bc041f2qd8ee641ddb1fc9be@mail.gmail.com> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> <004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0711070632j3bc041f2qd8ee641ddb1fc9be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4731DE04.8090009@ntlworld.com> [Richard Willey] Nigel: I really think that you are projecting a very idiosyncratic set of concerns onto the population at large. Do you have any reliable estimate regarding what fraction of bridge players are being terribly inconvenienced by the need to constantly master foreign convention cards and alert structures? (Personally, I don't think that the numbers are that large. Moreover, I suspect that the players who would be most effected - pros and the like - are also the ones who are most likely to be able to cope with these types of issues) [nige1] Richard's question must be rhetorical :) Although it would be easy to do, as far as I know, neither the WBF nor any NBO has ever made any realistic attempt to gather statistics on the legal preferences, problems and concerns of ordinary players :( [Richard] Equally significant, do you recognize that the "cure" that you recommend will force almost everyone in the world to learn yet another new alerting structure. [nige1] True, but it would be a one-off simple universal protocol. As those who played last week-end in Bournemouth can confirm, few experienced players seem to be familiar with the latest (2006) revision of the EBU Orange book alert regulations; so the suggested global defaults are unlikely to be worse. Naturally, I think they would be an improvement [Richard] You constantly fail to recognize that YOUR CURE IS THE DISEASE ITSELF. A few posts back, you noted how upset foreign visitors are when they travel into a new land and are suddenly deprived of their favorite conventions. Your solution to to take away those conventions at home and abroad... And somehow you think that people are going to welcome this change... [nige1] I repudiate that criticism. I consistently advocate *more* systemic freedom. For example I believe that fert, strong-pass and encrypted systems should be allowed, providing any departures from the standard system are disclosed. If the standard system were BWS, that might entail a lot of disclosure :) [Richard] Please note: I have some small degree of sympathy for your ideas. However, I think that you are going about things completely the wrong way. You seem fixated on a grandiose project to impose a new regime from on high, as if the WBF has any real power. Get this through your thick skull: This isn't going to ever happen. [Nige1] Thank you Richard :) A first step towards uniform rules would be the WBFLC taking the trouble to provide a comprehensive set of default rules that local legislatures are free to accept or over-ride. If Grattan is typical, the WBFLC instead advocate the devolution of regulation. Hence, I do accept that unification is unlikely in my life-time. [Richard] The only way that a scheme like this one could ever work would be if some kind of common bidding system was already in widespread use. If 90% of the players in country XYZ all played the exact same set of methods you MIGHT be able to implement the standard alert system that you so dearly love. I recommend taking a good look at countries that have fairly homogeneous bidding methods (France would be an obvious example). Look at their alerting structures and see whether they adhere to your ideal. Feel free to come back and tell us what you learn. I also recommend looking at alerting structures in the US that used to be based on departures from a norm and try to understand why the ACBL moved away from this scheme. [nige1] I would like to hear about disclosure rules in other jurisdictions, especially if any mandate alerting departures from a coherent playable standard system. I don't think a bottom-up approach will work although I do hope that the legal improvements in on-line bridge will gradually filter down into f2f laws. [Richard] Once you reach some conclusions, it might be worth while considering whether it would ever be possible to get bridge teachers to adhere to a common teaching curriculum. [nige1] I've taught Bridge for a long time and I teach (but I don't normally play) "Simple English" methods. Most British teachers try to adhere to the same standards. [Richard] But whatever you do, please stop tilting at windmills. Its incredibly sad to watch. [nige1] They're our windmills, Sancho, and I'll tilt if I want to :) From Gampas at aol.com Wed Nov 7 16:47:39 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:47:39 EST Subject: [blml] About restoring equity Message-ID: In a message dated 07/11/2007 11:33:10 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: >I wonder how the red suits should be distributed since West made an >>invitational lead in Clubs instead of leading a Heart or a Diamond and it apparently never occurred to East to attack in either red suit? >Incidentally, I would also like to see a reasonably sane auction for South >to end up as declarer in 1NT? On the second point, if you reverse the order of suits in both hands, so that North has C AQJ10xx instead of spades, then a reasonable auction might be 1NT (11-13) All Pass. As the cards are, Two Spades is the probable contract, it is agreed. But that is not relevant to the point under discussion, and is a red (or black in this case) herring. When restoring equity for the revoke where the normal penalty is not enough, it is assumed that the defence would continue clubs rather than switch to a red suit. Without Smith Peters it would not be clear to switch, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the non-offender. So the adjustment is to 1NT =, making 5 spades and 2 clubs. The other case is indeed 1NT + 2. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 17:05:09 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:05:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <002d01c82153$c50a2e00$0701a8c0@john> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com><004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com> <002d01c82153$c50a2e00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4731E235.6040403@ntlworld.com> [John Probst] Nigel, you're on bollox again. When I go to France I play mini. Frog baiting is a traditional English sport.. It's not a question of having clubs removed. It's a projectile cannon that can reach the green of a par 5. There's no b***dy problem playing in different areas, the locals are just as screwed by your methods as you are by theirs. it's what makes bridge fun. Screwing the Frogs over as we have for the last 800 years is a sport you'd try to stop. Sheesh, you're not even a friggin Englishman if you do that. [nige1] John seems to have switched back from his Jekyll alter ego. I'm a Scot, John :) Remember the "Auld Alliance" :) Are Multis allowed in France? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 7 17:40:29 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:40:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <000001c82152$de1aeac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <4731C871.2070203@ulb.ac.be> <000001c82152$de1aeac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000f01c8215c$fb201230$f1603690$@com> [SP] Sorry, I do not accept this as a reasonably sane auction [DALB] And I do not accept this as a reasonably (or at all) sane reply to Konrad's post. He made it completely clear that he had invented a hand to illustrate what he saw as a problem in the Laws. This is the Bridge Laws Mailing List, not the Why You Should Not Be In 1NT Mailing List, so quibbles about an auction that never existed in any case are truly absurd. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 7 18:44:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:44:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <00d101c820a7$578f5e60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><2da24b8e0711061106jf73ef35xe48def741330bea@mail.gmail.com> <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com><004301c8212e$82496740$92ce403e@Mildred> <4731B271.4030407@ntlworld.com><002d01c82153$c50a2e00$0701a8c0@john> <4731E235.6040403@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <005f01c82165$e22db940$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f > [John Probst] > Nigel, you're on bollox again. When I go to France I play mini. Frog > baiting is a traditional English sport.. It's not a question of having > clubs removed. It's a projectile cannon that can reach the green of a > par 5. There's no b***dy problem playing in different areas, the > locals are just as screwed by your methods as you are by theirs. it's > what makes bridge fun. Screwing the Frogs over as we have for the > last 800 years is a sport you'd try to stop. Sheesh, you're not even > a friggin Englishman if you do that. > > [nige1] > John seems to have switched back from his Jekyll alter ego. > > I'm a Scot, John :) Remember the "Auld Alliance" :) All is explained! Every time we went across the water to beat up the Frogs, the bleedin' Scots'd pile over Hadrian's Wall and stab us in the backside. Nigel; forget universal systems - you are on bollox there. I'm with you for simplification, no problem there; but the reality is that we should be educating for full disclosure, eradicating the disease raher than providing paliatives. cheers john > > Are Multis allowed in France? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 8 00:11:38 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 00:11:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <000f01c8215c$fb201230$f1603690$@com> Message-ID: <000201c82193$8d1175e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > Sorry, I do not accept this as a reasonably sane auction > > [DALB] > > And I do not accept this as a reasonably (or at all) sane reply to > Konrad's > post. He made it completely clear that he had invented a hand to > illustrate > what he saw as a problem in the Laws. This is the Bridge Laws Mailing > List, > not the Why You Should Not Be In 1NT Mailing List, so quibbles about an > auction that never existed in any case are truly absurd. Exactly, and as I said in my first comment I shall give NS exactly 1NT made, nothing more, nothing less. Any discussion for equity must take into consideration all circumstances, including the auction and the play demonstrated. And both the contract and opponents' play puzzled me. Regards Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 8 01:43:08 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:43:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <200711071521.lA7FLCLE019709@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711071521.lA7FLCLE019709@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47325B9C.5060604@nhcc.net> > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. ... > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. The example is flawed, but BLML has discussed this situation before. Many people believe the two revokes in the same suit are one irregularity, so the adjusted score is the expected result immediately before the first revoke. Others -- and I'm in this second category -- believe the two revokes are separate offenses, and the NOS equity is the expected result immediately before the _second_ revoke, including the penalty from the first revoke. In other words, what would have happened if the offender had revoked exactly once, then followed suit the second time. The new Laws seem to me to favor the second view, though that may be only my wishful thinking. Regardless of your view on how to apply L64C, L72B1 certainly applies if the offender "could have known" that having revoked once, a second revoke would be "likely" to be advantageous. I don't see how the "one irregularity" crowd can get around that. > Peter Eidt: > I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the EBL > that we have to deal with every revoke on its own merit. As noted above, this seems correct to me. I was quite surprised to find anyone disagree. It makes no sense to me to penalize a player who revokes once more than a player who revokes twice. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 8 01:50:57 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:50:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <200711061517.lA6FH0HM002020@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711061517.lA6FH0HM002020@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47325D71.1070101@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > There is a very simple rule of the thumb: Any information that would be > unavailable to a player if playing with screens is always "extraneous" to > him. I agree that the rule is simple, but it seems completely wrong to me. Among other things, it excludes mannerisms from one opponent. Even aside from that, it excludes knowledge that opponents are having a misunderstanding if they happen to give conflicting explanations. There are probably more things wrong with it, but these are enough to show that the "rule" is wrong. (In answer to someone else, yes, I think answers to questions are "mannerisms" within the meaning of present L16. If not, the game seems unplayable.) From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 8 01:57:21 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:57:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > My view is that the word 'normal' excludes > the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a > correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do have > an anxiety. Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a two-card ending with no statement. 1) Ax opposite Kx. I don't think we want to force the irrational play of crashing the honors, losing the last trick. 2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some would disagree with me here). Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within "normal?" If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 8 02:21:14 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 20:21:14 EST Subject: [blml] 'normal' Message-ID: In a message dated 08/11/2007 00:57:25 GMT Standard Time, swillner at nhcc.net writes: >2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I >don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some >would disagree with me here). I agree, and S AQx opposite S Kx H 2 in no-trumps (the heart two is not a winner). It would not be normal to play the ace followed by the king, in my view. But would you allow S 965 opposite S 78 H 2 where the heart two is not a winner, but the spades are all winners? Again it is normal not to play the S9 first ... but I have seen poor players go wrong. And what about S A92 opposite S 103 H2, with one high card out in spades, and the H2 not a winner. I would now have to disallow that one if the declarer did not state "cashing the ace and unblocking the 10". I would not contest it, personally, as a defender, however. I guess that is about the point at which normality ends and carelessness takes over, but we should have some case law to guide us. I expect we soon will ... From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 8 03:58:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:58:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <32C3BD97-5EE0-4ED9-A1BF-22C120D82B80@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Comments please. For those who want to rule > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > says that an assigned adjusted score is > "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > even if one drops the king of spades offside. In the first case I rule 1NT= to NS, and I look to see if there's any at all probable result worse than that for EW. In the second case, where only one revoke occurred, declarer's two "extra" tricks from the revoke penalty are a windfall. Nice for him, but irrelevant to score adjustment at the other table. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 8 04:02:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:02:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred> <1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <75D5841C-A808-49DD-86B4-CA9A7E5A9F33@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:24 AM, PeterEidt at t-online.de wrote: > The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64 B2). > But here the revoke destroys the communication between > hand and dummy and results in damage for the non-offending > side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond revoke > (all black tricks that remain after cashing the reds, max. 7) Hm. We are down to whether "had no irregularity occurred" in the laws means literally what it says, or refers only to the irregularity in immediate question (in this case, the second revoke). I'm not sure, but I think the WBFLC has said the former. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 8 04:06:15 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:06:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <000001c82152$de1aeac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c82152$de1aeac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <677ECDB5-5850-48E0-9336-09104C136FC3@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Sorry, I do not accept this as a reasonably sane auction; South's > bid of 1NT > is IMO wild and gambling. Does it really matter, for the purposes of the ruling at hand, how they got there? From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 8 04:07:18 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:07:18 +0900 Subject: [blml] translating the laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711080307.AA11347@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, We are now translating the new laws into Japanese. I'd appreciate advice from people in other countries about the philosophy of how such translations should be done. One extreme is for the translation to be completely literal. For example, if the English version uses "cancel", "retract" and "withdraw" in nearly identical ways, or "award" and "assign," should we assume these subtle variations were well thought-out and intentional, and translate each of them differently into Japanese? Or should we ignore the use of different words in English, and translate, say "award" and "assign" using the same Japanese word for both English words? The answer to this question depends on the question of how careful the drafters were in their choice of individual words. My personal guess is that the drafters was reasonably careful but not super-careful. So that it shouldn't be necessary, for example, to translate "....is unauthorized" and ".... is unauthorized information" in different ways. I'd be interested in learned how people who've been involve in the translation work in various countries and also how Grattan and the drafters feel about this. Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 8 07:08:00 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:08:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <002d01c82153$c50a2e00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <341866.57765.qm@web86115.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > [nige1] > It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local > legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it > hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective, > incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and > inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are > the last straw for many would be-players. > I find this last statement surprising. I think that most club players are not even aware that their regulations are "chauvinistic". And if they were, I think that they would be pleased that disclosure regulations are relevant to the bridge-playing culture in which they actually play. > [nige2] > By "local beneficiaries" I meant those local players who are ... > - familiar with the idiosyncracies of local disclosure regulations and > - enjoying favourite methods that have been locally licensed. What is wrong with becoming familiar with one's local disclosure regulations? Why is a system that is unfamiliar to everyone likely to be superior? > Strangers and foreigners, however, ... > - are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods; > - on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards* > - they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*. Strangers and foreigners can take the initiative to research the bridge-playing culture in the area where they intend to play. Even if they have neglected to do this, they needn't worry much about being unfamiliar with the system card in use; they can ask before the round about the basic methods in use and ask about specifics during the auction. They could also take the trouble to read a blank card before sitting down to play, in order to familiarise themselves with the layout. What is far more important than catering to the occasional traveller or expatriate is ensuring that the disclosure standards in use in a particular place are relevant to the players using them, and serve to inform, rather than being redundant or irrelevant. I do not have extensive international experience, but I have played extensively in the USA, the UK and Russia, and have played a bit in Estonia. I have never had the problems which you, Nigel, and the players you wish to serve seem to have. > As well as this information famine, foreigners have to play with > favourite clubs removed from their bidding-bag. That depends. A UK player playing reasonably normal methods could go to the United States and find that the only one of their treatments that is disallowed at most levels that are available to play at is the Multi. Sad, perhaps, but my guess is that they will be able to struggle through. Players who play complex homegrown or brown-sticker methods can also, presumably, fend for themselves. Most jurisdictions have levels of allowed conventions designed to suit their players. Even the ACBL probably has the support of most of its players, even if catering for a largely elderly and intolerant population is the wrong approach. In the EBU, these levels evolve to suit the needs of the players. A recent change was to allow any defenses to NT openings and strong clubs at most (if not all) levels. The Multi is allowed at (all?) levels due to custom and practice, even though other similar bids are not permitted at lower levels. Many on this list believe that most jurisdictions should allow more freedom in permitted conventions, perhaps while protecting beginners from having to struggle with the likes of forcing passes and 2S=weak to intermediate with at least one suit of at least four cards, but not a club single-suiter (a cute little gadget I encountered recently). But this is a different matter from adopting a one-size-fits-all approach across the globe. Because one size really does not fit all. Another poster (RW I think) has asked if you know how many players are affected by the problems you have experienced. It is true that no one has compiled this information for you, but it seems as though someone who wants to introduce a set of regulations that would significantly affect all players of all levels in all countries for all time has the burden of discovering whether there are any players that would actually be served by them. But in any case, it has also been pointed out by other posters that the WBF do have a set of disclosure regulations, and that most NBOs have opted out, which you have conceded that they may do. So the situation you wish to see already exists. Having said all this, I personally believe that it would be best if the EBU used the WBF CoP. I suspect that this is true of many people who are burdened with a book of regulations that is, at the very least, unreadable and poorly organised. But I would expect a few modifications, especially in the area of disclosure and HUMs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071108/40dbd709/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 8 07:31:41 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:31:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <47318F5E.2040500@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Guthrie wrote: Whatever happens in other games, the point is that Bridge-players from different jurisdictions often play Bridge against each other and local rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home advantage. Where and when is this happening? Please note also: the *disclosure* suggestion ... - is *not* that everybody *bids* according to the same system; - it is that we disclose *departures* from the same system. It does require that everyone learn an additional system. I don't know how much club bridge you play, Nigel, but I can assure you that I know many people who have played for years and have managed to achieve only a passing familiarity with the system they actually play. Learning an additional system is completely out of the question for these people. A global standard is an far-off ideal to which we can aspire. "Ideal"? To paraphrase the Pretenders, nothing is perfect; not even a perfect disaster. I think that a homogeneous worldwide bridge culture would be very sad. It's like walking down a high street and seeing The Gap, Benetton, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, the Body Shop and Borders. Can you tell what country you are in? Can you bring yourself to care? Well, at least you won't have to deal with unfamiliarity. As explained earlier, many times, however, you don't need a globally imposed standard system to allow a more comprehensive global set of *basic disclosure rules*. Local standard systems can achieve that sub-goal. That's what we have here in the UK. Announcements and alerts are basically used for deviations from "Standard English" (a system that nobody actually plays, but which is somewhat similar to the standard systems played at rubber bridge clubs.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071108/d92715d8/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 8 07:54:38 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:54:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> Message-ID: <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Brian wrote:As I said, too many players come from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who only play F2F in their own country don't see it. I think that the latter players are those whom the regulations are supposed to serve. I don't think that many people in the world of bridge are that concerned with the trials and tribulations of online players, and quite right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071108/2b3882aa/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 8 09:29:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:29:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <47325D71.1070101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000701c821e1$831be220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > There is a very simple rule of the thumb: Any information that would be > > unavailable to a player if playing with screens is always "extraneous" > to > > him. > > I agree that the rule is simple, but it seems completely wrong to me. > Among other things, it excludes mannerisms from one opponent. Even > aside from that, it excludes knowledge that opponents are having a > misunderstanding if they happen to give conflicting explanations. There > are probably more things wrong with it, but these are enough to show > that the "rule" is wrong. > > (In answer to someone else, yes, I think answers to questions are > "mannerisms" within the meaning of present L16. If not, the game seems > unplayable.) Sorry, I was too categorical. Yes, mannerisms from either opponent are indeed AI and so is your suspicion that opponents have a misunderstanding between them, all at your own risk. Regards Sven From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 09:53:39 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 03:53:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:54:38 +0000 (GMT) Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > Brian wrote:As I said, too many players come > from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local > NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and > disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a > cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who > only play F2F in their own country don't see it. > > I think that the latter players are those whom the regulations are > supposed to serve. I don't think that many people in the world of > bridge are that concerned with the trials and tribulations of online > players, and quite right. Please yourself. It's my opinion that you're in a small minority, evidence being the extensive VuGraphs of national and international events offered on BBO, presumably with the co-operation of the organisers, the online laws produced some while back by the WBF, the online games run under the auspices of various NBOs, the fact that some rather large NBOs sanction online games for purposes of awarding master points... all of this seems to me to suggest that there are quite a few people in "the world of bridge" who are concerned with the online game. You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never played at a club. Without online bridge, those players would mostly be lost to the game. With online bridge, you still have a chance of getting them to play both, assuming they have a club within reach (my nearest is 50 miles away and plays only in the afternoons). Online bridge, IMO, has a substantial part to play in the future of the game, and hopefully those in charge will be a little less short-sighted than you. Brian. -- From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 8 10:10:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:10:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi gang, > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > incoherencies in the laws. > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > pair of hands: > > AQJ109x > xxx > xx > xx > > xxx > xxxx > xxxx > AK > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, > East again pitching something red. > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count > but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes > the king of spades. > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke > can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? > Please reply to this question before reading on. > > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. > The contract is the same and East revokes just the same > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > the king of spades which he could legally have played > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > by revoking for the second time. > > Comments please. For those who want to rule > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > says that an assigned adjusted score is > "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > even if one drops the king of spades offside. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT= -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 8 10:19:35 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:19:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> References: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200711080919.AA11351@geller204.nifty.com> > Please yourself. It's my opinion that you're in a small >minority, evidence being the extensive VuGraphs of national and >international events offered on BBO, presumably with the co-operation >of the organisers, the online laws produced some while back by the WBF, -> These are very important as a way of publicizing bridge, but the events being webcast are all F2F (with reare exceptions of on-line exhibition matches.) >the online games run under the auspices of various NBOs, the fact that >some rather large NBOs sanction online games for purposes of awarding >master points... all of this seems to me to suggest that there are >quite a few people in "the world of bridge" who are concerned with the >online game. Yes, sort of. But because of the security problems on-line tourneys can't be accorded serious status as competitions. >You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never played at >a club. Without online bridge, those players would mostly be lost to the >game. With online bridge, you still have a chance of getting them to >play both, assuming they have a club within reach (my nearest is 50 >miles away and plays only in the afternoons). Online bridge, IMO, has a >substantial part to play in the future of the game, and hopefully those >in charge will be a little less short-sighted than you. Yes, it certainly is an important avenue for getting new players. But they need to be roped into playing F2F bridge if they're going to improve. Also, because the new on-line players are new players period, someone needs to teach them about ethics, etc. Not sure if anyone is working hard enough on this. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 11:18:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:18:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> My view is that the word 'normal' excludes >> the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a >> correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do have >> an anxiety. > > Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a > two-card ending with no statement. > > 1) Ax opposite Kx. I don't think we want to force the irrational play > of crashing the honors, losing the last trick. > > 2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I > don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some > would disagree with me here). > > Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within "normal?" > If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so. > +=+ On this last point I can only say that John Wignall has suggested, and I have submitted for consideration, that the subject be covered in the Appendix. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 11:18:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:18:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> My view is that the word 'normal' excludes >> the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a >> correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do have >> an anxiety. > > Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a > two-card ending with no statement. > > 1) Ax opposite Kx. I don't think we want to force the irrational play > of crashing the honors, losing the last trick. > > 2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I > don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some > would disagree with me here). > > Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within "normal?" > If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so. > +=+ On this last point I can only say that John Wignall has suggested, and I have submitted for consideration, that the subject be covered in the Appendix. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 11:28:18 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:28:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred><1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <75D5841C-A808-49DD-86B4-CA9A7E5A9F33@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity > > On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:24 AM, PeterEidt at t-online.de wrote: > >> The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64 B2). >> But here the revoke destroys the communication between >> hand and dummy and results in damage for the non-offending >> side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond revoke >> (all black tricks that remain after cashing the reds, max. 7) > > Hm. We are down to whether "had no irregularity occurred" > in the laws means literally what it says, or refers only to the > irregularity in immediate question (in this case, the second > revoke). I'm not sure, but I think the WBFLC has said the > former. > +=+ Could you point me to the place, please, where these words appear? In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" and in 72B1 "through the irregularity". It should be added that 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender in the same suit. Also note a difference of language between the CoP (dealing with the 1997 Laws) and the 2007 Law 12B1 - viz: (CoP) "Damage exists when, in consequence of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." and (2007) "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." It is not obvious to me that the effect is anywhere different, but one finds it difficult to envisage every obscure circumstance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 8 11:31:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:31:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <000201c82193$8d1175e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c82193$8d1175e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4732E59B.2090803@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of David Burn >> [SP] >> >> Sorry, I do not accept this as a reasonably sane auction >> >> [DALB] >> >> And I do not accept this as a reasonably (or at all) sane reply to >> Konrad's >> post. He made it completely clear that he had invented a hand to >> illustrate >> what he saw as a problem in the Laws. This is the Bridge Laws Mailing >> List, >> not the Why You Should Not Be In 1NT Mailing List, so quibbles about an >> auction that never existed in any case are truly absurd. >> > > Exactly, and as I said in my first comment I shall give NS exactly 1NT made, > nothing more, nothing less. > > Any discussion for equity must take into consideration all circumstances, > including the auction and the play demonstrated. IBTD. "Restoring equity", as has been said before, means "restoring the result that was probable, /at the moment of the infraction/, if the infraction didn't happen". Whence, in revoke (or LOOT) cases, the bidding is irrelevant. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 8 11:42:52 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:42:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred><1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <75D5841C-A808-49DD-86B4-CA9A7E5A9F33@rochester.rr.com> <007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <4732E82C.5010100@ulb.ac.be> Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > > +=+ Could you point me to the place, please, where these words > appear? In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" > and in 72B1 "through the irregularity". It should be added that > 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject > to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender > in the same suit. > So, to summarize, the second revoke doesn't incur any systematic penalty, but is still subject to equity-oriented corrections. Right ? In which case, in contradiction with the Antalya case, the two revokes could be treated separately. Or is there one more subtlety ? Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 12:04:35 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:04:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi gang, > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > incoherencies in the laws. > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > pair of hands: > > AQJ109x > xxx > xx > xx > > xxx > xxxx > xxxx > AK > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, > East again pitching something red. > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count > but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes > the king of spades. > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke > can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? > Please reply to this question before reading on. > > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. > The contract is the same and East revokes just the same > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > the king of spades which he could legally have played > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > by revoking for the second time. > > Comments please. For those who want to rule > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > says that an assigned adjusted score is > "the most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > even if one drops the king of spades offside. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > (Herman DE WAEL) This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT= > +=+ 'settled' would appear to be an overstatement. If such a situation occurred in Antalya it was no doubt 'settled' for that tournament. This does not preclude consideration by higher authority. Konrad should observe that 'had the irregularity not occurred' is not necessarily the same as "if no irregularity occurred'. The law is clear enough, I believe, in establishing that the second revoke is a second infraction; where we have scope to explore is in the possibility that ruling on the first revoke - if there was consequential damage - might perhaps get rid of the second revoke. But what if the second revoke is adjudged to have caused damage not caused by the first ? The subject is complex. Under the 2007 Laws it is seemingly the case that the words 'Law 64C may apply' in Law 64B2 relate to damage consequent on the second revoke. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 12:32:21 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:32:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] "seemingly" Message-ID: <00a401c821fb$1bf88980$61d3403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The multitude of the sick shall not make us deny the existence of health." [Emerson] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I must just make the point that in discussing the effect of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, if debated, only corporate decisions have binding authority. Singly none of us does more than express opinion. Hence the intended style of my comments, including "it is seemingly the case"(sic). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 13:03:26 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:03:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <200711080919.AA11351@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> <200711080919.AA11351@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071108070326.0f3ff36b@linuxbox> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:19:35 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > Please yourself. It's my opinion that you're in a small > >minority, evidence being the extensive VuGraphs of national and > >international events offered on BBO, presumably with the co-operation > >of the organisers, the online laws produced some while back by the > >WBF, > -> These are very important as a way of publicizing bridge, but the > events being webcast are all F2F (with reare exceptions of on-line > exhibition matches.) > I know. I offered them as an example of the offline world being concerned with online bridge. Presumably if online was as unimportant as Stefanie thinks, the organisers of the F2F tournaments wouldn't bother. > > >the online games run under the auspices of various NBOs, the fact > >that some rather large NBOs sanction online games for purposes of > >awarding master points... all of this seems to me to suggest that > >there are quite a few people in "the world of bridge" who are > >concerned with the online game. > Yes, sort of. But because of the security problems on-line tourneys > can't be accorded serious status as competitions. > Yes, security is a problem when your opponents can't see you. That's not the point I was making, though. > > >You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never played > >at a club. Without online bridge, those players would mostly be lost > >to the game. With online bridge, you still have a chance of getting > >them to play both, assuming they have a club within reach (my > >nearest is 50 miles away and plays only in the afternoons). Online > >bridge, IMO, has a substantial part to play in the future of the > >game, and hopefully those in charge will be a little less > >short-sighted than you. > Yes, it certainly is an important avenue for getting new players. > But they need to be roped into playing F2F bridge if they're going to > improve. > Well, I think there's sufficient online competition to get the majority of people to their peak. Most evenings (USA time) you can find Garozzo online, usually playing in Jimmy Cayne's series of team games. I've seen Fantoni/Nunes playing in them before now, too. Soloway and Goldman were long-time stalwarts of OKBridge until their deaths. Someone who knows more about international bridge than I do would no doubt recognise more big names. No doubt John Probst can give us a few names from BPL to add to the list. Unless you think Fred Gitelman doesn't know what he's doing when he dishes out his "star" classification, there's no shortage of other not-quite-so-big names. And as regards roping new BBO players into playing F2F bridge as well, Fred seems to be fairly open to suggestions, not to mention advertisements. You know where to find them... > Also, because the new on-line players are new players period, someone > needs to teach them about ethics, etc. Not sure if anyone is working > hard enough on this. > Couldn't tell you. There's certainly no shortage of people offering paid lessons on BBO, including some fairly well-known names, although I'd guess that they'd be more likely to be teaching advanced players. Never having taken an online lesson, I can't answer your (implied) question. Brian. -- From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 13:32:52 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:32:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4><002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred><1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <75D5841C-A808-49DD-86B4-CA9A7E5A9F33@rochester.rr.com><007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> <4732E82C.5010100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001901c82203$7dcb4960$dbca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > > +=+ Could you point me to the place, please, where these words > appear? In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" > and in 72B1 "through the irregularity". It should be added that > 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject > to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender > in the same suit. > So, to summarize, the second revoke doesn't incur any systematic penalty, but is still subject to equity-oriented corrections. Right ? In which case, in contradiction with the Antalya case, the two revokes could be treated separately. Or is there one more subtlety ? Best regards Alain +=+ As regards your first statement, such is my opinion. Inter alia I suggest that, as a matter of grammar, "the irregularity" applies as much to the second infraction as it applies to the first, independently considered. Concerning your second statement, Herman may have made too sweeping an assertion as to what the directors agreed, esoterically, in Antalya. I do not recall being a party to the discussion - although I may have been present - so I do not know how far they examined the particular circumstance of damage, or additional damage, inherently consequent upon a second revoke in the same suit by the same offender. Warmest greetings, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 8 14:32:15 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:32:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be> <008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "The multitude of the sick shall > not make us deny the existence > of health." [Emerson] > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity > > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> Hi gang, >> >> Here is a case I made up to discuss certain >> incoherencies in the laws. >> >> MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this >> pair of hands: >> >> AQJ109x >> xxx >> xx >> xx >> >> xxx >> xxxx >> xxxx >> AK >> >> West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East >> shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with >> Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take >> six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, >> East again pitching something red. >> Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count >> but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with >> the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays >> low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes >> the king of spades. >> Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades >> instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. >> >> East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the >> same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply >> is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 >> it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke >> can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. >> So obviously we must wheel out L64C. >> >> Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? >> In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? >> Please reply to this question before reading on. >> >> Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. >> >> After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. >> The contract is the same and East revokes just the same >> in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the >> 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus >> avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. >> >> Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs >> + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with >> the king of spades which he could legally have played >> to the first spade trick). So this South ends up >> with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. >> >> So at the end of the day the first East benefitted >> by revoking for the second time. >> >> Comments please. For those who want to rule >> 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. >> If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted >> score then please keep in mind that L12C2 >> says that an assigned adjusted score is >> "the most favourable result that was likely had the >> irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity >> occurred at all South would never have taken 9 >> tricks because it is physically impossible here - >> even if one drops the king of spades offside. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krak?w, Poland >> >> > (Herman DE WAEL) > This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top > directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on > the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets > 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT= > +=+ 'settled' would appear to be an overstatement. If such a > situation occurred in Antalya it was no doubt 'settled' for that > tournament. This does not preclude consideration by higher > authority. Konrad should observe that 'had the irregularity > not occurred' is not necessarily the same as "if no irregularity > occurred'. The law is clear enough, I believe, in establishing > that the second revoke is a second infraction; where we have > scope to explore is in the possibility that ruling on the first > revoke - if there was consequential damage - might perhaps > get rid of the second revoke. But what if the second revoke > is adjudged to have caused damage not caused by the first ? > The subject is complex. Under the 2007 Laws it is seemingly > the case that the words 'Law 64C may apply' in Law 64B2 > relate to damage consequent on the second revoke. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What I meant with "settled" was that a running dispute between Antonio, Ton and Max was laid to rest when Max agreed to the interpretation favored by Antonio and Ton. As an aside, I also "settled" and agreed that this interpretation was a sensible one. I suspect that every one of them realized that there is the "strange" fact that a player who revokes twice is less punished than one who revokes only once. Too bad. As for the player who deliberately revokes a second time, this is unlikely to happen. If he lets out that he has done so, there are enough laws to punish him just as harshly as a player who did not revoke a second time. And yes, that means that good actors can get away with it. So what? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 8 14:48:56 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:48:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be> <008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <473313C8.5070301@ulb.ac.be> > > I suspect that every one of them realized that there is the "strange" > fact that a player who revokes twice is less punished than one who > revokes only once. Too bad. > As for the player who deliberately revokes a second time, this is > unlikely to happen. If he lets out that he has done so, there are > enough laws to punish him just as harshly as a player who did not > revoke a second time. > > AG : The way I read L72, he doesn't need to let it out, twe only need a hint of the possibility that he made it deliberately, knowing it could mask the first revoke. The problem is, this is nearly always the case. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 15:07:33 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:07:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be><008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c82210$b825df50$02cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "The multitude of the sick shall > not make us deny the existence > of health." [Emerson] > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity > > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> Hi gang, >> >> Here is a case I made up to discuss certain >> incoherencies in the laws. >> >> MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this >> pair of hands: >> >> AQJ109x >> xxx >> xx >> xx >> >> xxx >> xxxx >> xxxx >> AK >> >> West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East >> shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with >> Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take >> six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy, >> East again pitching something red. >> Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count >> but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with >> the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays >> low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes >> the king of spades. >> Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades >> instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. >> >> East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the >> same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply >> is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6 >> it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke >> can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. >> So obviously we must wheel out L64C. >> >> Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1? >> In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks? >> Please reply to this question before reading on. >> >> Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. >> >> After a while this deal is replayed at some other table. >> The contract is the same and East revokes just the same >> in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the >> 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus >> avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. >> >> Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs >> + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with >> the king of spades which he could legally have played >> to the first spade trick). So this South ends up >> with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. >> >> So at the end of the day the first East benefitted >> by revoking for the second time. >> >> Comments please. For those who want to rule >> 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis. >> If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted >> score then please keep in mind that L12C2 >> says that an assigned adjusted score is >> "the most favourable result that was likely had the >> irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity >> occurred at all South would never have taken 9 >> tricks because it is physically impossible here - >> even if one drops the king of spades offside. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krak?w, Poland >> >> > (Herman DE WAEL) > This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top > directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on > the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets > 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT= > +=+ 'settled' would appear to be an overstatement. If such a > situation occurred in Antalya it was no doubt 'settled' for that > tournament. This does not preclude consideration by higher > authority. Konrad should observe that 'had the irregularity > not occurred' is not necessarily the same as "if no irregularity > occurred'. The law is clear enough, I believe, in establishing > that the second revoke is a second infraction; where we have > scope to explore is in the possibility that ruling on the first > revoke - if there was consequential damage - might perhaps > get rid of the second revoke. But what if the second revoke > is adjudged to have caused damage not caused by the first ? > The subject is complex. Under the 2007 Laws it is seemingly > the case that the words 'Law 64C may apply' in Law 64B2 > relate to damage consequent on the second revoke. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What I meant with "settled" was that a running dispute between Antonio, Ton and Max was laid to rest when Max agreed to the interpretation favored by Antonio and Ton. As an aside, I also "settled" and agreed that this interpretation was a sensible one. I suspect that every one of them realized that there is the "strange" fact that a player who revokes twice is less punished than one who revokes only once. Too bad. As for the player who deliberately revokes a second time, this is unlikely to happen. If he lets out that he has done so, there are enough laws to punish him just as harshly as a player who did not revoke a second time. And yes, that means that good actors can get away with it. So what? +=+ Well, leaving aside your agreement that the interpretation is a sensible one - which has no relevance - I do not agree, if this is intended, that it is in accordance with law (1997 or 2007) that if there is damage, or additional damage, consequent upon the second revoke in the same suit this is not to be compensated under 64C if the transfer of the trick(s) under the revoke law generally insufficiently compensates the non-offending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 8 14:55:14 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:55:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4732D27C.1040205@skynet.be> <008801c821f7$8d1e6fc0$61d3403e@Hellen> <47330FDF.1040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c8220f$03c64b40$0b52e1c0$@com> [KC] Here is a case I made up to discuss certain incoherencies in the laws. [DALB] I see no practical difficulty here. Since the penalty for the first revoke is death, the penalty for the second is irrelevant. What? You mean they haven't adopted my suggestion in the 2007 Laws? In that case, I'm not playing any more. David Burn London, England From schoderb at msn.com Thu Nov 8 17:18:35 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:18:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] translating the laws References: <200711080307.AA11347@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Having had some experience in translating, even between "English" users throughout the world, I believe that good translation conveys intent. To me an accurate translation uses those words and maybe even differing grammar that provide understanding of the author's intent. The words are not be a "literal" word-for-word translation. Transliteration adds to the problem. The argument that I've heard that 'this can't be translated into my language' just means to me that the individual is trying to force words to have meanings without understanding of the message. Sometimes one needs to think outside the box to arrive at a solution. I believe we drafters were perhaps not always super-careful and a lot of argument can be generated about the difference between "award" and "assign" in rectification (as I'm sure some will do with glee) but these can be resolved by asking oneself "What is the intent of these words?" To me "awards" is used when the TD adjusts a score obtained by the players, and "assigned" is when the TD decides the score. Important distinction? Probably not, in my opinion -- the effect is the same. For example, "he dicho" is used in Spanish at the end of a presentation to simply indicate I've finished speaking. It is relatively "soft" compared to a literal translation of "I have spoken" in English. To translate "he dicho" into German (ich habe gesprochen) would be even more improper and probably get a good laugh! So, I'd recommend that English is read, the mind captures the intent of the words, and the pen presents the intent in the other language. Easy? Hell no, one of my relatives was an instantaneous translator at the United Nations many decades ago and had the rare ability to do this on-the-fly. Those faced with translation of the written word at least have the time to mull things over and ask for explanation of intent before deciding. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:07 PM Subject: [blml] translating the laws > Dear BLMLers, > We are now translating the new laws into Japanese. I'd appreciate advice > from people in other countries about the philosophy of how such > translations > should be done. > > One extreme is for the translation to be completely literal. For example, > if the English version uses "cancel", "retract" and "withdraw" in nearly > identical ways, or "award" and "assign," should we assume these subtle > variations were well thought-out and intentional, and translate each of > them differently into Japanese? Or should we ignore the use of different > words in English, and translate, say "award" and "assign" using the same > Japanese word for both English words? > > The answer to this question depends on the question of how careful the > drafters were in their choice of individual words. My personal guess is > that the drafters was reasonably careful but not super-careful. So that > it shouldn't be necessary, for example, to translate "....is > unauthorized" and ".... is > unauthorized information" in different ways. > > I'd be interested in learned how people who've been involve in the > translation work > in various countries and also how Grattan and the drafters feel about > this. Thanks. > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mustikka at charter.net Thu Nov 8 17:26:50 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:26:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001b01c82224$2ae559e0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: Stefanie Rohan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f Brian wrote: As I said, too many players come from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who only play F2F in their own country don't see it. [Stefanie wrote] I think that the latter players are those whom the regulations are supposed to serve. I don't think that many people in the world of bridge are that concerned with the trials and tribulations of online players, and quite right. Online bridge is much more populous than you seem to think. Cheers, Raija From mustikka at charter.net Thu Nov 8 17:32:33 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:32:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> <200711080919.AA11351@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <002501c82224$f76ecd20$291e5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" [snipped discussion about online bridge] But they need to be roped into playing F2F bridge if they're going to improve. *** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? Raija From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 8 22:50:52 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:50:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <002501c82224$f76ecd20$291e5e47@DFYXB361> References: <002501c82224$f76ecd20$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200711082150.AA11364@geller204.nifty.com> >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? > >Raija Playing against strong players under supervised conditions. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 00:21:28 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:21:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <200711082150.AA11364@geller204.nifty.com> References: <002501c82224$f76ecd20$291e5e47@DFYXB361> <200711082150.AA11364@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071108182128.37a07ab4@linuxbox> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:50:52 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? > > > >Raija > > Playing against strong players under supervised conditions. All right, Bob, I'll ask the obvious question. Why supervised conditions? You'll find more than enough strong players online, are you really suggesting that they'll all cheat if there's no supervision? Brian. -- From geller at nifty.com Fri Nov 9 02:09:10 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:09:10 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071108182128.37a07ab4@linuxbox> References: <20071108182128.37a07ab4@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200711090109.AA11368@geller204.nifty.com> >> >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? >> > >> >Raija >> >> Playing against strong players under supervised conditions. > >All right, Bob, I'll ask the obvious question. Why supervised >conditions? You'll find more than enough strong players online, are >you really suggesting that they'll all cheat if there's no supervision? You'll find strong players playing practice matches online. Obviously there's little or no incentive to resort to less than fully ethical tactics in a practice match. But you won't find any serious tourneys involving major competitions being played online (for obvious reasons). (There are of course oneline vugraph broadcasts of major f2f events, but that's a separate matter.). I don't play online myself, but from reading electronic bulletin boards, cheating by low level players seems to be a major concern. The authorities seem to be doing the best they can to police it using hand records. But until this problem can be solved (if it ever can) it's unlikely any country or zone will hold a national or zonal championship online. If you know of any that have been held please let me know. Ordinary players are unlikely to be invited to practice against Meckwell or the like in their online exhibition matches. If you want to play Meckwell, pay your 20 bucks or whatever and enter an f2f event they'll be playing in. In order to really bring out one's best, a competition has to be for somethng meaningful. Like honor (a national or zonal or world championship), money (cash prizes), or at least an ersatz substitute like masterpoints. If online competitions involved one or more of these then the competitors would be just as serious as they are in major f2f events. But in the absence of one or more of these motivators, it's just a pleasant way to spend time. I'm not saying it's without value in improving one's game, but it's the difference between an exhibition game in baseball, or an NFL preseason game or a friendly match in soccer versus a competition that counts in the league standings. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 9 02:46:44 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:46:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <200711081554.lA8FsIre026675@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711081554.lA8FsIre026675@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4733BC04.1050400@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" Note the singular "irregularity." Unfortunately, the new Laws seem to blur this with (in the Introduction) "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural...." I don't see why this statement was added. Usually there is significant difference between singular and plural events. > 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject > to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender > in the same suit. And in the new Laws, 64B2 specifically refers to L64C. This seems to imply an adjustment for the second revoke itself, not for the combination. > (2007) "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would > have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Again the singular "infraction" would be telling (indeed conclusive, in my view) were it not for the statement in the Introduction. I hope the forthcoming Appendix will address Konrad's question. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 9 03:56:58 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:56:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f References: <20071108182128.37a07ab4@linuxbox> <200711090109.AA11368@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000a01c8227c$323607f0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure f2f > >>> >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? >>> > >>> >Raija >>> >>> Playing against strong players under supervised conditions. >> >>All right, Bob, I'll ask the obvious question. Why supervised >>conditions? You'll find more than enough strong players online, are >>you really suggesting that they'll all cheat if there's no supervision? > > You'll find strong players playing practice matches online. > Obviously there's little or no incentive to resort to > less than fully ethical tactics in a practice match. > But you won't find any serious tourneys involving major > competitions being played online (for obvious reasons). > (There are of course oneline vugraph broadcasts of major f2f events, > but that's a separate matter.). > > I don't play online myself, but from reading electronic bulletin boards, > cheating by low level players seems to be a major concern. > The authorities seem to be doing the best they can to police it > using hand records. But until this problem can be solved (if > it ever can) it's > unlikely any country or zone will hold a national or zonal > championship online. If you know of any that have been > held please let me know. > > Ordinary players are unlikely to be invited to practice against > Meckwell or the like in their online exhibition matches. > If you want to play Meckwell, pay your 20 bucks or whatever > and enter an f2f event they'll be playing in. > > In order to really bring out one's best, a competition > has to be for somethng meaningful. Like honor (a national > or zonal or world championship), money (cash prizes), > or at least an ersatz substitute like masterpoints. If > online competitions involved one or more of these then > the competitors would be just as serious as they are > in major f2f events. But in the absence of one or > more of these motivators, it's just a pleasant way to spend time. > I'm not saying it's without value in improving one's game, > but it's the difference between an exhibition game in baseball, > or an NFL preseason game or a friendly match in soccer versus > a competition that counts in the league standings. > > -Bob I think you completely miss the point of my question, which was "What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving?" You mentioned supervision, money, masterpoints, and national honors. There are plenty of fine players who have an intrinsic motivation to excel and learn, with or without a paid or unpaid tutor, and who love the game and its neverending complexities. They already have the motivation from within and thus do not need money, masterpoints, or national honors as motivators. Supervised play is easier to arrange online than F2F. Online offers automatedly some functions that are very tedious for a teacher or learning buddy to perform F2F and with real cards, such as practice deals, practice tables, recording of all plays for later review and study (with or without teacher/mentor), hand records, etc. For someone who has not played online, you have strong opinions:) Cheers, Raija From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Nov 9 04:21:44 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 03:21:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <297614.88623.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I am surprised by the amount of debate on this thread. I would have thought that it was obvious that the second revoke's lack of penalty did not affect in any way the penalty applied for the first revoke. Cheers Stefanie Rohan --- "PeterEidt at t-online.de" wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ******************************** > > "Small talk dies in agonies." > > ~ Shelley > > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > Hi gang, > > > > Here is a case I made up to discuss certain > > incoherencies in the laws. > > > > MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this > > pair of hands: > > > > AQJ109x > > xxx > > xx > > xx > > > > xxx > > xxxx > > xxxx > > AK > > > > West leads a club and South plays a spade to the > 9. East > > shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with > > Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take > > six spades so he calls for the spade ten from > dummy, > > East again pitching something red. > > Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's > left can't count but > > this is not South's problem. He crosses back to > hand with > > the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West > plays > > low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks > lose - East takes the > > king of spades. > > Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two > spades > > instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three. > > > > East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in > the > > same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can > apply > > is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of > 5 or 6 > > it is clear that no automatic penalty for the > revoke > > can be sufficient compensation for the > non-offending side. > > So obviously we must wheel out L64C. > > > > Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT > +1? > > In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade > tricks? > > Please reply to this question before reading on. > > > > Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1. > > > > After a while this deal is replayed at some other > table. > > The contract is the same and East revokes just the > same > > in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls > for the > > 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus > > avoiding a second revoke in the same suit. > > > > Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs > > + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with > > the king of spades which he could legally have > played > > to the first spade trick). So this South ends up > > with 9 tricks - 1NT +2. > > > > So at the end of the day the first East benefitted > > by revoking for the second time. > > > > Comments please. For those who want to rule > > 1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide > legal basis. > > If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted > > score then please keep in mind that L12C2 > > says that an assigned adjusted score is > > "the most favourable result that was likely had > the > > irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity > > occurred at all South would never have taken 9 > > tricks because it is physically impossible here - > > even if one drops the king of spades offside. > > > > +=+ "The Director may not award an adjusted score > > on the ground that the penalty provided in these > Laws > > is either unduly severe or advantageous to either > side" > > Adopting this principle the Director must abide by > > Law 64C and do no more than 'restore equity', > which > > I interpret, following WBF guidelines, as being > the > > score that would have resulted had no irregularity > > occurred - the King being taken when the suit is > first > > finessed. Further, if it is adjudged that there > has been > > a violation of Law 72B2 a procedural penalty may > be > > assessed on the guilty side, which might be (say) > the > > equivalent of a top on the board. > > What may have occurred at another table is > > irrelevant. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Peter Eidt: > I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the > EBL > that we have to deal with every revoke on it's own > merit. > > The first revoke leads to a 2 trick penalty (Law 64 > A2); > there is no need for Law 64 C in this case, as the 2 > tricks > do compensate the damage of this revoke. > > The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64 > B2). > But here the revoke destroys the communication > between > hand and dummy and results in damage for the > non-offending > side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond > revoke > (all black tricks that remain after cashing the > reds, max. 7) > > Now the 2 penalty-tricks for the first revoke are > added to a > maximum of 9 tricks. > > This approach also solves the problem of > 'unfairness' > regarding the outcome of the hand whether the > revoker > makes a second revoke or not. > > Regards > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From geller at nifty.com Fri Nov 9 05:40:01 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:40:01 +0900 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <000a01c8227c$323607f0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> References: <000a01c8227c$323607f0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200711090440.AA11372@geller204.nifty.com> raija writes: >I think you completely miss the point of my question, which was "What aspect >of F2F is necessary for improving?" You mentioned supervision, money, >masterpoints, and national honors. I'd didn't miss the point at all. I answered your question directly. If you don't like my opinion fine. >There are plenty of fine players who have an intrinsic motivation to excel >and learn, with or without a paid or unpaid tutor, and who love the game and >its neverending complexities. They already have the motivation from within >and thus do not need money, masterpoints, or national honors as motivators. I don't buy this for a second. Competition is essential to bring out the best of player's abilities. If you don't agree with me that's fine, but let's just agree to disagree, >Supervised play is easier to arrange online than F2F. Waddya mean? You seem to think I mean play with a teacher. I mean player with a director (or more) present in the room, and with screens, and without the ability to create sock puppet accounts to look at other people's hands or to IM or phone pard by land lines during play. I don't think very many people do this in on-line play, but the inability to police it means you can't have a serious tourney on line. >Online offers automatedly some functions that are very tedious for a teacher >or learning buddy to perform F2F and with real cards, such as practice >deals, practice tables, recording of all plays for later review and study >(with or without teacher/mentor), hand records, etc. Sure, maybe. I don't have any opinions on this one way or the other. But I'm not talking about just learning to play as a beginner, but rather about trying to reach a serious ability level. >For someone who has not played online, you have strong opinions:) You seem to have a problem with anyone besides yourself having strong opinions. :-) But for you general information my colleague and I translated the entire BBO user interface (about 2000 phrases and words) into Japanese and continue to keep up on this as new terms are introduced. And I also was heavly involved when the JCBL started doing VuGraph with commentary in Japanese. I've watched a moderate amount of on-line bridge as a kibitzer. So you probably won't agree, but IMHO I have some basis for expressing an opinion. Cheers, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Nov 9 02:27:16 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <001b01c82224$2ae559e0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <144761.28756.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> raija wrote: Brian wrote: As I said, too many players come from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who only play F2F in their own country don't see it. [Stefanie wrote] I think that the latter players are those whom the regulations are supposed to serve. I don't think that many people in the world of bridge are that concerned with the trials and tribulations of online players, and quite right. Online bridge is much more populous than you seem to think. Cheers, Raija I have not suggested that nobody plays it. I play myself, from time to time. I am just saying that it would be a mistake for the WBF and NBOs to devise their disclosure regulations to cater for online play. And possibly there won't be a problem too far into the future; I can envision the day that every bid comes with an automated explanation. Cheers Stefanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071109/833b971f/attachment.htm From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 08:59:47 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 02:59:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <144761.28756.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <001b01c82224$2ae559e0$291e5e47@DFYXB361> <144761.28756.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071109025947.642efdc8@linuxbox> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > I have not suggested that nobody plays it. I play myself, from time > to time. I am just saying that it would be a mistake for the WBF and > NBOs to devise their disclosure regulations to cater for online > play. And possibly there won't be a problem too far into the future; > I can envision the day that every bid comes with an automated > explanation. > At least on BBO, the tools to do that are already there. Fred calls it "Full Disclosure". The only problem with it is that filling in all the data is, to say the least, rather tedious and time-consuming (far more so that writing out a F2F CC). Now if Fred would only enhance it so that it would grab explanations on the fly, then (IMO) he'd have a REALLY useful program. Brian. -- From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 09:53:22 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 03:53:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <200711090109.AA11368@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20071108182128.37a07ab4@linuxbox> <200711090109.AA11368@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20071109035322.22dffdbb@linuxbox> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:09:10 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > >> >*** What aspect of F2F is necessary for improving? > >> > > >> >Raija > >> > >> Playing against strong players under supervised conditions. > > > >All right, Bob, I'll ask the obvious question. Why supervised > >conditions? You'll find more than enough strong players online, are > >you really suggesting that they'll all cheat if there's no > >supervision? > > You'll find strong players playing practice matches online. > Obviously there's little or no incentive to resort to > less than fully ethical tactics in a practice match. I find that a very sad statement, Bob. Yes, I know everyone has their price, but mine (the only example available to me), is a damned sight higher than winning a bridge tournament. Even so, let's take your own opinions as fact for a minute. If strong players are playing honestly online because there is no incentive to do otherwise in a practice match, then surely that contradicts your original claim that supervised conditions are necessary for players to improve. You can't have it both ways. > But you won't find any serious tourneys involving major > competitions being played online (for obvious reasons). Programming has been my living for the last 20+ years. I'm well aware of the ways that you CAN cheat, if you want to do so. I can even think of one or two that wouldn't occur to the vast majority of people. > (There are of course oneline vugraph broadcasts of major f2f events, > but that's a separate matter.). > > I don't play online myself, but from reading electronic bulletin > boards, cheating by low level players seems to be a major concern. > The authorities seem to be doing the best they can to police it > using hand records. But until this problem can be solved (if > it ever can) it's > unlikely any country or zone will hold a national or zonal > championship online. If you know of any that have been > held please let me know. > Yes, cheating is a concern, just the same as it is in F2F bridge. And yes, it's easier to cheat in online bridge. But I'd be wary of believing everything you read on mailing lists and newsgroups. My experience is that there are a few VERY vociferous witch-hunters out there (and I could mention names) who seem to believe that everyone who can cheat will do so. Except for themselves and their friends, of course. (John Mayne, if he's reading this, will have a good idea who I mean). No, I'm not aware of any national or above championships being held online. I think it will be a long time before that will happen, even if online bridge could be made totally secure. BBO does have their "money bridge" feature, where two of you play for money with robots (GIB) as partners. That seems a scenario in which it's at least difficult to cheat. I have no interest in playing some primitive bidding system with a robot as my partner, and I think a substantial number of online players would share that view. > Ordinary players are unlikely to be invited to practice against > Meckwell or the like in their online exhibition matches. Sure, if they've got a set game for practice, you aren't going to get to play. Set games are that, by definition. If you work your way up to be good enough, you'll get games against better and better players. It just won't happen overnight, or anywhere close to it. > If you want to play Meckwell, pay your 20 bucks or whatever > and enter an f2f event they'll be playing in. > Right, and seven boards against them (let's assume you pick a team event, and get lucky) is going to teach you what, exactly? I'm not arguing with you that playing against better players is the way to improve, not for a moment. I *am* maintaining that you have far more chance to do that online, even if it takes you a *LOT* longer until you get games against the really top level. If you think the odd few boards against an expert pair really confers that much benefit, you can always look at the online mini-tournaments, there are certainly enough of them. > In order to really bring out one's best, a competition > has to be for somethng meaningful. Like honor (a national > or zonal or world championship), money (cash prizes), > or at least an ersatz substitute like masterpoints. The only two online bridge sites on which I've played (BBO and OKBridge) both offer, or used to offer, tournaments with ACBL masterpoints. Not much use to those in other countries, of course. And OK, I accept that you belong to that group of players who need an incentive to "really do their best". Maybe that's true of *really* good players. I have no claims to be an expert, just a decent club player, but I know that I don't play any differently online than I did in the F2F tournaments that I entered in the UK. > If > online competitions involved one or more of these then > the competitors would be just as serious as they are > in major f2f events. But in the absence of one or > more of these motivators, it's just a pleasant way to spend time. See above re master points (personally, I never saw the value of them anyway, other than to the NBO). And I think you're guilty of assuming that your own motivations apply to everyone. Some of us are happy playing a "serious" session and coming out of it feeling that it's been an intellectual exercise, and happy that we did the best that we could. I don't need some number against my name on an NBO database to justify those feelings. > I'm not saying it's without value in improving one's game, > but it's the difference between an exhibition game in baseball, > or an NFL preseason game or a friendly match in soccer versus > a competition that counts in the league standings. > We will have to agree to disagree. If you go on to a site and look for three pickup players to start a game, then you might be right. If you have a regular partner, and play in set games against other regular partnerships, then the competition can be just as hard as if it was a tournament, particularly if the players concerned all have competitive natures. Brian. -- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 9 10:24:26 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt at t-online.de) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:24:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Introduction of the 2007 laws in the Europe Message-ID: <1IqQ6E-05xqmO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Hi, the WBF Laws page (from Anna) states: "Zonal Organizations are authorized to introduce and give effect to the 2007 Code of Laws on dates of their choosing in the period 1st January 2008 to 30th September 2008 inclusive. Please note that it is not appropriate to delegate the choice of date below NBO level. " The EBL laws page unfortunately stills refers to the 1997 Laws and further refers to the WBF pages. Is here any authorized (or well informed) person reading this thread to give us (me) a definitive answer to the question: What is the decision of the EBL concerning it's choice of the date of introduction of the new Laws in their affiliated NBOs? As I read Annas page (and the preface of the new Laws), the EBL has to make this choice and I thought the EBL had to publish it's choice as well, eh? Regards Peter From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 9 13:41:59 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:41:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Introduction of the 2007 laws in the Europe References: <1IqQ6E-05xqmO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001c01c822cd$f099caf0$96d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:24 AM Subject: [blml] Introduction of the 2007 laws in the Europe > > Is here any authorized (or well informed) person > reading this thread to give us (me) a definitive > answer to the question: > > What is the decision of the EBL concerning it's > choice of the date of introduction of the new Laws in their > affiliated NBOs? > +=+ In Shanghai I did mention to the EBL President that it would be desirable for the EBL to say that for their own domestic purposes Zone 1 NBOs should be told that each has discretion to select a date convenient to it. This does not seem to have been made known yet. I have emailed to Gianarrigo Rona a reminder in this regard. My understanding is that this delegation of choice is normal in the EBL and that it is not the intention to impose a single operative date throughout the Zone except for Zonal competitions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 9 14:05:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:05:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <200711081554.lA8FsIre026675@cfa.harvard.edu> <4733BC04.1050400@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004801c822d1$303e5600$96d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" > > Note the singular "irregularity." Unfortunately, the new Laws seem to > blur this with (in the Introduction) "Finally, unless the context > clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural...." > > I don't see why this statement was added. Usually there is significant > difference between singular and plural events. > >> 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject >> to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender >> in the same suit. > > And in the new Laws, 64B2 specifically refers to L64C. This seems to > imply an adjustment for the second revoke itself, not for the combination. > >> (2007) "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would >> have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." > > Again the singular "infraction" would be telling (indeed conclusive, in > my view) were it not for the statement in the Introduction. > > I hope the forthcoming Appendix will address Konrad's question. > +=+ Because of the reference to 64C in 64B2 I do not believe the word 'irregularity' can be construed here as referring to any but the one irregularity. I would say that the context dictates otherwise. In my view the 2007 definition of damage also looks at each specific irregularity in its own light, although it may then further look at the cumulative effects of linked irregularities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 9 14:05:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:05:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity References: <200711081554.lA8FsIre026675@cfa.harvard.edu> <4733BC04.1050400@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004801c822d1$303e5600$96d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred" > > Note the singular "irregularity." Unfortunately, the new Laws seem to > blur this with (in the Introduction) "Finally, unless the context > clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural...." > > I don't see why this statement was added. Usually there is significant > difference between singular and plural events. > >> 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject >> to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender >> in the same suit. > > And in the new Laws, 64B2 specifically refers to L64C. This seems to > imply an adjustment for the second revoke itself, not for the combination. > >> (2007) "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would >> have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." > > Again the singular "infraction" would be telling (indeed conclusive, in > my view) were it not for the statement in the Introduction. > > I hope the forthcoming Appendix will address Konrad's question. > +=+ Because of the reference to 64C in 64B2 I do not believe the word 'irregularity' can be construed here as referring to any but the one irregularity. I would say that the context dictates otherwise. In my view the 2007 definition of damage also looks at each specific irregularity in its own light, although it may then further look at the cumulative effects of linked irregularities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 16:23:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:23:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <000001c8203d$60b752a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8203d$60b752a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <70E38636-01A3-448F-B222-3B969C0F9C78@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:22 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> >> What about _opponents'_ questions? I gave the example of our >> artificial >> 1D bid. Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall. Of >> course we >> ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never >> discussed your >> kind of 1D bid." Why can't we vary our agreements according to >> whether >> the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D. (We know >> perfectly >> well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on >> whether he asked about 1D or not.) > > Would you classify the information that opponents ask questions as > included > in > > "information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of > opponents" > > or as: "other extraneous information"? > > IMO calling it "mannerism" is far fetched. The former. Questions are covered by L16A; they are UI to partner but may be taken into account by opponents (at their own risk). L16B contains numerous examples of "other extraneous information" none of which suggest that it covers any actions by one's opponents related to the board in play. This may stretch the dictionary definition of "mannerism", but not as far as one would have to stretch L16B to decide otherwise. This is clearer in the new laws. Note the cross-reference from L16A1 (c), which defines a class of presumptive AI, to L16B1, which contains the same sort of list of examples that was in the old L16A and explicitly makes it UI for "partner" only. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 16:30:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:30:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 In-Reply-To: <001501c82041$a361ae30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001501c82041$a361ae30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan >> And it would be a difficult system to play with screens... > > There is a very simple rule of the thumb: Any information that > would be > unavailable to a player if playing with screens is always > "extraneous" to > him. Simple, but obviously wrong. I am explicitly permitted to take advantage of the "mannerisms" of my opponents, including those of the opponent who would be hidden from me if screens were in use. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 9 17:10:29 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:10:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> References: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Brian wrote: > You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never > played at > a club. Do *those* players think their NBO's regulations are worldwide? Do they even know who their NBO is, much less what the regulations are? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 9 17:24:28 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:24:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] About restoring equity In-Reply-To: <007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> References: <08a401c82123$c1564e90$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <002801c8212c$8270fe60$92ce403e@Mildred> <1Ipj10-1O7sjQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <75D5841C-A808-49DD-86B4-CA9A7E5A9F33@rochester.rr.com> <007301c821f2$3436d4b0$61d3403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <2BF4A998-ACFF-4530-82A9-2B4303DAE470@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Could you point me to the place, please, where these words > appear? Okay, you got me. "The", not "no". Of course, we still have, in the 2007 laws "the singular includes the plural". Yes, I've read your opinion there, Grattan. Seems reasonable. :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 17:29:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:29:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <000201c8208f$f9287710$3ccb403e@Hellen> References: <006301c81edd$fcbed670$66c9403e@Hellen> <0DB1BDCA-B510-4FBE-A86B-4FCAEF24B590@starpower.net> <000201c8208f$f9287710$3ccb403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <4DC80271-3AC7-4E16-947A-0FDEC4D77A27@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "The multitude of the sick shall > not make us deny the existence > of health." [Emerson] > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:20 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' > > >> On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > (Eric): >>>> But it no longer appears in the footnote. That >>>> raises a new concern: not whether a player's >>>> ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether >>>> "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from >>>> which the refererence to it has been expunged. >>>> Tim's point, as I understand it, is that while it >>>> may be true that it is no longer relevant to the >>>> consideration of plays that are careless or >>>> inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration >>>> of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes >>>> when Mrs. Guggenheim declares). >>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> '' >>> (Grattan) >>> +=+ I wonder whether what is not being absorbed >>> here is the requirement in the substantive law that >>> the Director shall only postulate plays that are, in >>> bridge terms without reference to the class of player, >>> normal. If a play would be abnormal whoever might >>> make it then the Director is not entitled to consider it. >>> To that extent irrational plays would be excluded >>> from the Director's mind. >> > (Eric): >> That is not being absorbed because that is not what it says. What it >> says is that "'normal' includes play that would be careless or >> inferior". Which means that "normal" includes play that is any of >> (a) "dictionary" normal, i.e. plays that would be considered normal >> were there no footnote, (b) careless, or (c) inferior. Which means >> that it excludes only play that is none of (a), (b) or (c). Very few >> "irrational" plays, however defined, would qualify as none of (a), >> (b) or (c). >> >> Grattan's suggested criterion is precisely what the 1997 laws, as >> written, called for. If that was the WBFLC's intent, there was no >> need to change the footnote; all it needed was to be "un- >> reinterpreted". If it was felt that clarification was needed, they >> could have used Grattan's words above, leaving the existing words >> unchanged but (redundantly) appending "without reference to the class >> of player". Or simply deleted "for the class of player involved". >> >> Moreover, if such an exception were implicit in the new footnote, as >> Grattan suggests, it would surely not appear explicitly in L70E. The >> author(s) of L70E must have meant *something* by putting it there, >> and it must be something that they didn't intend should apply to L70D >> or L71. >> >> I don't understand how TDs are supposed to "absorb" this implicit >> exception for irrational plays in contexts in which neither of the >> words "rational" nor "irrational" appears in the relevant law. >> > +=+ Not quite what I said. My view is that the word 'normal' excludes > the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a > correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do > have > an anxiety. I know that in removing 'irrational' from the footnote and > relying upon the meaning of 'normal' (in the Law itself) the intention > was to exclude consideration of any play that, for any and every > player, > is irrational. Whether this needs be further clarified is not > something that > one of us alone can decide, but my inclination is to wish that > there may > be no doubt of it. Let's see if I can reduce what needs to be clarified to its essence: The purpose of the footnote is to tell us what should be included in "any normal play" [L70C3], "an alternative normal line of play" [L70D1], "alternative normal plays" [L70D2], "any normal line of play" [L70E1], or, again, "any normal play" [L71.2 -- BTW, shouldn't that be L71B?]. Whatever it means specifically, it defines the set of plays or lines of play which the TD is to consider when "ascribing" a potential line of play for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score under any of these five laws. L70E, and only L70E, reduces that set by excluding alternative lines of play the "adoption" of which would be "irrational". What is the difference between the reduced set to be considered when applying L70E and the unreduced set to be considered when applying the other four? As Grattan suggests, the presumably intended answer is that there isn't any -- that the explicit exclusion in L70E is actually implicit in all five places -- and I agree that that's probably what we want. I can twist and torture interpretations of bridge law with the best of them, but I just don't see how to justify reading that intention into the actual words. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 17:52:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:52:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> References: <339352.59496.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <200711060624.AA11310@geller204.nifty.com> <20071106171316.26da034c@linuxbox> Message-ID: <49C4611D-B14E-45E1-A32F-3D8160C30D71@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Brian wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:24:43 +0900 > Robert Geller wrote: > >> I agree completely with Stefanie that local regulations are fine, >> rather than arbitrarily creating a "one size fits all" global >> standard system. > > Well, I'll tell you that it's an absolute pain in the backside as far > as online bridge is concerned, where any number of newcomers to the > online game who have played bridge under their local NBO think that > it's > *their* local regulations that are in force world wide. They think their local regulations are in force on-line because they think their local regulations make more sense than any others. They think their local regulations make more sense than any others because they are used to playing face to face at their local venues, where (in this context) they are presumably correct. Good regulations reflect a consensus as to how the game should be played; they do not futilely attempt to arbitrarily enforce one. Disclosure regulations based on a global standard system would work very well indeed. Too bad we don't have a global standard system on which to base them. What some in this forum don't understand is that picking some system arbitrarily and calling it "the global standard system" won't make it so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 17:55:44 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: References: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> Message-ID: <20071109115544.0379e205@linuxbox> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:10:29 -0500 Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Brian wrote: > > > You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never > > played at > > a club. > > Do *those* players think their NBO's regulations are worldwide? Do > they even know who their NBO is, much less what the regulations are? > Fairly obviously, Ed, no on all counts. I wouldn't expect that "online only" players are in the majority, though - not yet. In any case, I doubt that "online only" players really care about what their NBO does or recommends. I certainly don't feel in any way beholden to the ACBL, for example. I would assume that people who (for example) state that a multi 2D is illegal are F2F players, new to online play, who are following the regulations of their NBO. I could be wrong, of course, but in that case I can't imagine what gives them that idea. Brian. -- From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 9 18:47:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:47:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071109115544.0379e205@linuxbox> References: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> <20071109115544.0379e205@linuxbox> Message-ID: On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Brian wrote: > I would assume that people who (for example) state that a multi 2D is > illegal are F2F players, new to online play, who are following the > regulations of their NBO. I could be wrong, of course, but in that > case > I can't imagine what gives them that idea. So it's not "online players" who think their NBO's regulations are universal laws, it's "online players who also play f2f". Fair enough. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 19:15:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:15:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2DEB9EE8-E055-4221-A5B5-EA2B916D1285@starpower.net> On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> My view is that the word 'normal' excludes >> the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a >> correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I >> do have >> an anxiety. > > Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a > two-card ending with no statement. > > 1) Ax opposite Kx. I don't think we want to force the irrational play > of crashing the honors, losing the last trick. > > 2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I > don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some > would disagree with me here). I agree that we don't want either of these. But they seem to be what we've got. > Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within "normal?" > If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so. It does the opposite. It tells us that "careless or inferior" play *does* fall within the scope of "'normal'", notwithstanding that we would not consider them to do so absent the specific instruction in the footnote. One can hardly deny that the example plays are indeed "careless or inferior". The old limitation which restricted consideration of plays that were "careless or inferior" to those that are "not irrational" has been expunged. We can only hope that the expected "guide to interpretation" of the new laws will tell us that, yet again, we have laws that are to be interpreted to mean something very different from what they actually say. One can only hope further that the WBF will find the humility to be embarassed when it discovers it needs to do this. They deserve humiliation for their insistence on refusing to let anyone outside of their own strictly limited inner circle so much as glimpse their proposed new laws until every word and punctuation mark have been set in concrete. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 19:41:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:41:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> References: <20071106183746.794ceeba@linuxbox> <146241.33766.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20071108035339.43c0fa4e@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4274F7E8-C014-4122-964C-E40FE854F887@starpower.net> On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Brian wrote: > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:54:38 +0000 (GMT) > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Brian wrote:As I said, too many players come >> from F2F bridge to the online game with the idea that their local >> NBO's regulations and common systems are the world-wide standard, and >> disabusing them of that notion can be a right nuisance. There *is* a >> cost to devolving down to the national level, even if players who >> only play F2F in their own country don't see it. >> >> I think that the latter players are those whom the regulations are >> supposed to serve. I don't think that many people in the world of >> bridge are that concerned with the trials and tribulations of online >> players, and quite right. > > Please yourself. It's my opinion that you're in a small > minority, evidence being the extensive VuGraphs of national and > international events offered on BBO, presumably with the co-operation > of the organisers, the online laws produced some while back by the > WBF, > the online games run under the auspices of various NBOs, the fact that > some rather large NBOs sanction online games for purposes of awarding > master points... all of this seems to me to suggest that there are > quite a few people in "the world of bridge" who are concerned with the > online game. > > You'd be surprised how many players are online who have never > played at > a club. Without online bridge, those players would mostly be lost > to the > game. With online bridge, you still have a chance of getting them to > play both, assuming they have a club within reach (my nearest is 50 > miles away and plays only in the afternoons). Online bridge, IMO, > has a > substantial part to play in the future of the game, and hopefully > those > in charge will be a little less short-sighted than you. "The regulations" Stefanie refers to are those made pursuant to "our own" TFLB (L80). Brian tells us that a whole separate set of laws has been promulgated ("some while back") for on-line bridge. Any "local" regulations for on-line bridge are thus made pursuant to those laws, so have no relationship to any "local" regulations made under the F2F laws. We don't need reminding that "local" means two quite different things in the real world or in cyberspace. I don't see where Stefanie and Brian actually disagree about anything here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 9 19:51:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:51:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <90A59758-008C-4329-94B5-05870E578B46@starpower.net> On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: "Steve Willner" > >>> From: "Grattan Endicott" >>> My view is that the word 'normal' excludes >>> the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, >>> if a >>> correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I >>> do have >>> an anxiety. >> >> Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a >> two-card ending with no statement. >> >> 1) Ax opposite Kx. I don't think we want to force the irrational >> play >> of crashing the honors, losing the last trick. >> >> 2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding. I >> don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect >> some >> would disagree with me here). >> >> Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within >> "normal?" >> If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so. > > +=+ On this last point I can only say that John Wignall has suggested, > and I have submitted for consideration, that the subject be covered in > the Appendix. Perhaps someone might also suggest (I would do so myself did I not lack the standing, not being a member of any of the WBF's privy councils) and submit for consideration that the reinterpretations that appear in the Appendix be perused by some otherwise uninvolved pairs of eyes prior to finalization, lest the WBF subsequently discover the need to submit re-reinterpretations for coverage in the not-yet-to-be-forthcoming (fifthcoming?) Appendix to the Appendix. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 22:53:46 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:53:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <90A59758-008C-4329-94B5-05870E578B46@starpower.net> References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> <90A59758-008C-4329-94B5-05870E578B46@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20071109165346.2f1eb1ee@linuxbox> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:51:57 -0500 Eric Landau wrote: > > Perhaps someone might also suggest (I would do so myself did I not > lack the standing, not being a member of any of the WBF's privy > councils) and submit for consideration that the reinterpretations > that appear in the Appendix be perused by some otherwise uninvolved > pairs of eyes prior to finalization, lest the WBF subsequently > discover the need to submit re-reinterpretations for coverage in the > not-yet-to-be-forthcoming (fifthcoming?) Appendix to the Appendix. > As should have happened with the Laws themselves - but now I'll be accused of doubting John Wignall's qualifications again, or possibly some other member of the WBFLC. Final proof reads *have* to be undertaken by someone uninvolved with the drafting. Those involved with the drafting will have too great a tendency to read what they "know" is there, rather than what's actually there. The excuse about the potential to be swamped with comments from a wider consultation is pure BS. If the will was there, a way of filtering out the rubbish and just passing on the important points could easily be found. I'm sure an appeal to the BLML readership would result in quite a number of volunteers, for starters. Brian. -- From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 10 02:38:18 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:38:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu><47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen><90A59758-008C-4329-94B5-05870E578B46@starpower.net> <20071109165346.2f1eb1ee@linuxbox> Message-ID: <002401c8233a$63f36530$a9c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:51:57 -0500 > Eric Landau wrote: > > As should have happened with the Laws themselves - but now I'll be > accused of doubting John Wignall's qualifications again, or possibly > some other member of the WBFLC. Final proof reads *have* to be > undertaken by someone uninvolved with the drafting. Those involved with > the drafting will have too great a tendency to read what they "know" is > there, rather than what's actually there. The excuse about the > potential to be swamped with comments from a wider consultation is pure > BS. If the will was there, a way of filtering out the rubbish and just > passing on the important points could easily be found. I'm sure an > appeal to the BLML readership would result in quite a number of > volunteers, for starters. > +=+ You are in error if you think the 2007 Laws were not proof read by appropriate eyes in plural locations and independent of the drafting subcommittee. Not every step in the process is in the public domain. The risk in offering opportunity to blml subscribers would have been that they would be inclined to involve themselves with principle rather than language, and this is not the proof reader's function. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Nov 10 07:11:48 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:11:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Introduction of the 2007 laws in the Europe In-Reply-To: <1IqQ6E-05xqmO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <345037.67142.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Watch your apostrophes. But anyway, why is this important? --- "PeterEidt at t-online.de" wrote: > Hi, > > the WBF Laws page (from Anna) states: > "Zonal Organizations are authorized to introduce and > > give effect to the 2007 Code of Laws on dates of > their > choosing in the period 1st January 2008 to 30th > September > 2008 inclusive. > Please note that it is not appropriate to delegate > the choice > of date below NBO level. " > > The EBL laws page unfortunately stills refers to > the 1997 Laws and further refers to the WBF pages. > > Is here any authorized (or well informed) person > reading this thread to give us (me) a definitive > answer to the question: > > What is the decision of the EBL concerning it's > choice of the date of introduction of the new Laws > in their > affiliated NBOs? > > As I read Annas page (and the preface of the new > Laws), > the EBL has to make this choice and I thought the > EBL > had to publish it's choice as well, eh? > > Regards > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sat Nov 10 11:45:06 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:45:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction References: <000801c8212d$2bb0ef80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002e01c82386$c2b3c410$91b8e75a@home4paplwv76s> The match was played without TD. The boards where carried by the players themselves. Just these 8 players where in the playing room. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > ............. >> +=+ I am puzzled that Torsten appears to be saying that in Sweden >> they set aside Law 7D. Steve appears to have the right approach here. >> Where was the match played? Who carried the boards? What were >> the possibilities of communication? These are the kinds of questions >> to be answered when considering Law 72B1. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I assume that this is a reminiscence from the 1987 Law 7D which indeed > stated that North was responsible for maintaining proper conditions at the > table. (We had the same rule in Norway). > > Extending this responsibility to include for instance the situation where > East or West takes their cards from the wrong pocket has always IMO been > pulling it too far, but this question has actually been raised here. > > My ruling at the table would be (both before and after 1997) that each > player is responsible for taking his own cards from the correct pocket. > > Consequently in Torsten's case I consider every player that had taken the > wrong cards and looked at them to be at fault. > > Thus I would give North South the benefit of their side's extremely > favourable result at the other table only if they had not taken their > cards > from the wrong pocket. If both sides took the wrong cards (90 degrees) I > would rule the board voided. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 10 12:17:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:17:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong direction In-Reply-To: <002e01c82386$c2b3c410$91b8e75a@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <000701c8238b$370cef40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Doesn't change my ruling Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Torsten ?strand > Sent: 10. november 2007 11:45 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > > The match was played without TD. The boards where carried by the players > themselves. Just these 8 players where in the playing room. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong direction > > > >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > > ............. > >> +=+ I am puzzled that Torsten appears to be saying that in Sweden > >> they set aside Law 7D. Steve appears to have the right approach here. > >> Where was the match played? Who carried the boards? What were > >> the possibilities of communication? These are the kinds of questions > >> to be answered when considering Law 72B1. > >> ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > > > > I assume that this is a reminiscence from the 1987 Law 7D which indeed > > stated that North was responsible for maintaining proper conditions at > the > > table. (We had the same rule in Norway). > > > > Extending this responsibility to include for instance the situation > where > > East or West takes their cards from the wrong pocket has always IMO been > > pulling it too far, but this question has actually been raised here. > > > > My ruling at the table would be (both before and after 1997) that each > > player is responsible for taking his own cards from the correct pocket. > > > > Consequently in Torsten's case I consider every player that had taken > the > > wrong cards and looked at them to be at fault. > > > > Thus I would give North South the benefit of their side's extremely > > favourable result at the other table only if they had not taken their > > cards > > from the wrong pocket. If both sides took the wrong cards (90 degrees) I > > would rule the board voided. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 14:19:49 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:19:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <002401c8233a$63f36530$a9c9403e@Mildred> References: <200711061635.lA6GZ2ew026061@cfa.harvard.edu> <47325EF1.1070408@nhcc.net> <007201c821f2$321e54f0$61d3403e@Hellen> <90A59758-008C-4329-94B5-05870E578B46@starpower.net> <20071109165346.2f1eb1ee@linuxbox> <002401c8233a$63f36530$a9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20071110081949.0373c884@linuxbox> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:38:18 -0000 wrote: > > > +=+ You are in error if you think the 2007 Laws were not proof > read by appropriate eyes in plural locations and independent of the > drafting subcommittee. Then I'm glad to hear it Grattan, because I was relying on an exchange between us on BLML on 12th Feb 2006, where you stated I think you underestimate the total resources of the drafting subcommittee. The final overview of language is, however, something that its Chairman has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in English of one of the most distinguished English Universities. If you see "the final overview of language" as being different to "proof reading", then that's the cause of the misunderstanding. > Not every step in the process is in the public > domain. I would have said that not ANY might be nearer the mark. > The risk in offering opportunity to blml subscribers would > have been that they would be inclined to involve themselves with > principle rather than language, and this is not the proof reader's > function. Here I think the misunderstanding is yours. Let me paste the reply I made to Eric Landau, in its entirety. As should have happened with the Laws themselves - but now I'll be accused of doubting John Wignall's qualifications again, or possibly some other member of the WBFLC. Final proof reads *have* to be undertaken by someone uninvolved with the drafting. Those involved with the drafting will have too great a tendency to read what they "know" is there, rather than what's actually there. The excuse about the potential to be swamped with comments from a wider consultation is pure BS. If the will was there, a way of filtering out the rubbish and just passing on the important points could easily be found. I'm sure an appeal to the BLML readership would result in quite a number of volunteers, for starters. My suggestion of using volunteers from BLML pertained to the filtering process if an excessive number of comments resulted from a wider consultation. While I accept that I might have added a paragraph break before "The excuse about", I still think the meaning is clear. However, let's try to make it abundantly so... I think the problems that might be caused by excessive responses to a wider consultation on the new laws could be solved by setting up a form of tiered set of mailing lists to filter those responses, and that the membership of BLML would be a source of volunteers for reading those lists. If that hasn't made it clear enough, I"ll be happy to send you a thorough explanation of how this sort of scheme works off-list (it would be from the world of programming rather than bridge administration, but I don't believe that would make any significant difference to the principle). Brian. -- From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 02:32:46 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:32:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Whatever happens in other games, the point is that Bridge-players from different jurisdictions often play Bridge against each other and local rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home advantage. [Stefanie Rowan] Where and when is this happening? [nige2] Everywhere everyday. [nige1] Please note also: the *disclosure* suggestion ... - is *not* that everybody *bids* according to the same system; - it is that we disclose *departures* from the same system. [Stefanie] It does require that everyone learn an additional system. I don't know how much club bridge you play, Nigel, but I can assure you that I know many people who have played for years and have managed to achieve only a passing familiarity with the system they actually play. Learning an additional system is completely out of the question for these people. [nige2] IMO it is fair to compare like with like. I teach beginners Standard English Acol but it is remarkable how many have picked up the ruidiments of "Strong notrump and five card majors" (Some of them from on-line play; others from experience abroad). They would all have a head start if they had to disclose departures from such a system. Contrast that with knowledge of local regulations. Few local players (even experienced players) have read the EBU Orange Book and fewer conform to its regulations. I guess a similar state of affairs obtains in other jurisdictions. [nige1] A global standard is a far-off ideal to which we can aspire. [Stefanie] "Ideal"? To paraphrase the Pretenders, nothing is perfect; not even a perfect disaster. I think that a homogeneous worldwide bridge culture would be very sad. It's like walking down a high street and seeing The Gap, Benetton, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, the Body Shop and Borders. Can you tell what country you are in? Can you bring yourself to care? Well, at least you won't have to deal with unfamiliarity. [nige1] IMO shops and games are different. I think games are fairer if played by familiar rules. [nige1] As explained earlier, many times, however, you don't need a globally imposed standard system to allow a more comprehensive global set of *basic disclosure rules*. Local standard systems can achieve that sub-goal. [Stefanie] That's what we have here in the UK. Announcements and alerts are basically used for deviations from "Standard English" (a system that nobody actually plays, but which is somewhat similar to the standard systems played at rubber bridge clubs.) [nige2] I agree with Stephanie that the EBU Orange book alert regulations implicitly define an unplayable system not too far removed from "Standard English". Hence, at least until there is a global standard, our local regulations would be simpler and better if they defined "Standard English" as a local "Standard" from which we disclosed departures. As previously explained, one advantage (of many) would be that beginners wouldn't need to alert or announce anything. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 12 02:52:54 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:52:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <717223.1227.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > Whatever happens in other games, the point is that > Bridge-players from > different jurisdictions often play Bridge against > each other and local > rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home > advantage. > [Stefanie Rowan] > Where and when is this happening? > [nige2] > Everywhere everyday. > Oh, OK. Maybe a couple of examples? > [nige1] > Please note also: the *disclosure* suggestion ... > - is *not* that everybody *bids* according to the > same system; > - it is that we disclose *departures* from the same > system. > [Stefanie] > It does require that everyone learn an additional > system. I don't > know how much club bridge you play, Nigel, but I can > assure you that I > know many people who have played for years and have > managed to achieve > only a passing familiarity with the system they > actually play. > Learning an additional system is completely out of > the question for > these people. > [nige2] > IMO it is fair to compare like with like. I teach > beginners Standard > English Acol but it is remarkable how many have > picked up the > ruidiments of "Strong notrump and five card majors" > (Some of them from > on-line play; others from experience abroad). They > would all have a > head start if they had to disclose departures from > such a system. It doesn't seem to me that such a procedure would be of any use to most club players. It seems rather silly. > Contrast that with knowledge of local regulations. > Few local players > (even experienced players) have read the EBU Orange > Book and fewer > conform to its regulations. I think that most players manage pretty well. Some are educated at the table. Many times I have told players who have less experience than I have, "Oh, if [bid] meant X then you should alert it." > [nige1] > IMO shops and games are different. I think games are > fairer if played > by familiar rules. The "rules" are the same everywhere. Disclosure regulations exist to be useful to the local culture. As I have said, strangers could do a bit of research if they are so concerned. Where, exactly, have you experienced the problems you describe? > [nige2] > I agree with Stephanie that the EBU Orange book > alert regulations > implicitly define an unplayable system not too far > removed from > "Standard English". Hence, at least until there is a > global standard, (I sincerely hope that hell freezes over first) > our local regulations would be simpler and better if > they defined > "Standard English" as a local "Standard" from which > we disclosed > departures. As previously explained, one advantage > (of many) would be > that beginners wouldn't need to alert or announce > anything. The implied system that we have seems to work fine. Announcements for NT ranges and opening twos are a big improvement. Do not forget that some beginners will learn weak twos or some NT range other than 12-14; so some beginners will have to announce or alert anyway. One improvement we could use is that normal Stayman not be alerted. I don't think that there is anyone in the UK who uses 2C as a weak takeout. > Cheers Stefanie From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 03:49:11 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:49:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> References: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0711111849j461f755bj7ff9f5fc9ee0422@mail.gmail.com> > [nige2] > I agree with Stephanie that the EBU Orange book alert regulations > implicitly define an unplayable system not too far removed from > "Standard English". Hence, at least until there is a global standard, > our local regulations would be simpler and better if they defined > "Standard English" as a local "Standard" from which we disclosed > departures. As previously explained, one advantage (of many) would be > that beginners wouldn't need to alert or announce anything. And here we see the one of the basic flaws with your proposal: You are stating that it is beneficial that beginners won't need to learn the alert / announcement system because it with be based on the same system that they are learning. You cite this as a basic advantage for your system. However, this is only a stop gap measure: Long term, you argue that that alerts / announcements should be based on deviations from some hypothetical "global standard" system. This complete negates your initial position. Lets assume that the hypothetical global standard is based on North American methods. (5 card majors, strong NT, yada, yada, yada). This guarantees that every one Poland (who is raised on Polish Club) and Great Britain (who is raised on Acol) and even France will be forced to learn both their local standard as well as the hypothetical global standard. I admit: A global standard, would in theory, provide some value to players who travel frequently between different regulatory Zones. However, I'd argue that the proposal fails on simple utilitarian grounds. The number of players who never play outside their own Zone vastly out numbers those who do. Why should we (dramatically) inconvenience the 99% of Poles, Brits, Aussies, etc who are never going to play a game in foreign country? Place the burden where it belongs: Those players who want to compete internationally should be the ones who need to spend time preparing. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 12 03:53:56 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:53:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <717223.1227.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <717223.1227.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <84AA941A-26C7-4275-9BE5-CAB4F54EC8E1@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 11, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I don't think that there is anyone in > the UK who uses 2C as a weak takeout. Probably not, although I do recall playing lunchtime rubber when I first got to England with a colleague with whom I hadn't played before. The auction went 1S on my left, X-P, and I took it out. Partner came down with an opening hand with five spades. He asked my why-in-Hell I took out his penalty double. I asked him why-in-Hell he *made* a penalty double. He said "that's what my mother taught me." His name, btw, was Paul Squire. I don't know if he's related to the Norman Squire three of whose books on bidding I have. :-) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 06:52:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:52:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <717223.1227.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <717223.1227.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4737EA26.3090604@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Whatever happens in other games, the point is that Bridge-players from different jurisdictions often play Bridge against each other and local rules impose an unfair and unnecessary extra home advantage. [Stefanie Rohan] Where and when is this happening? [nige2] Everywhere everyday. [Stefanie2] Oh, OK. Maybe a couple of examples? [nige3] Two typical simple examples (most are more complex) ... [A] Some time ago, my sister and I played at the French Club that met at the Young Chelsea. My sister misdefended a hand because she was unaware that a minor opening could be three card suit. I called the director and he explained that we were playing to French rules and such bids aren't alertable in France. The director then explained that we should have been alerting our one-level openings. My sister was upset. She might have been more upset had I not explained that the director was just trying to help. [B] A charming young French couple were welcomed to Reading Bridge Club. They enjoyed several nights of competition until they failed to alert a bid that, in France, is *not* alertable. Opponents were quite incensed and claimed damage disputed by the young couple. The director eventually ruled against the newcomers but they could not understand the ruling and appealed. They seemed to find it hard to argue their case in the context of unfamiliar regulations. The appeal committee upheld the director. The couple never came back. [Stefanie3] One improvement we could use is that normal Stayman not be alerted. I don't think that there is anyone in the UK who uses 2C as a weak takeout. [nige3] If Stayman were part of the "Standard System" it would not require disclosure. When I first played Bridge at the Carlton Bridge Club in Edinburgh, most played "Strong notrump no weakness takeouts". 2C was natural and constructive :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 07:42:44 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:42:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0711111849j461f755bj7ff9f5fc9ee0422@mail.gmail.com> References: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0711111849j461f755bj7ff9f5fc9ee0422@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4737F5E4.4020907@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Hence, at least until there is a global standard, our local regulations would be simpler and better if they defined "Standard English" as a local "Standard" from which we disclosed departures. As previously explained, one advantage (of many) would be that beginners wouldn't need to alert or announce anything. [Richard Willey] And here we see the one of the basic flaws with your proposal: You are stating that it is beneficial that beginners won't need to learn the alert / announcement system because it with be based on the same system that they are learning. You cite this as a basic advantage for your system. However, this is only a stop gap measure: Long term, you argue that that alerts / announcements should be based on deviations from some hypothetical "global standard" system. This complete negates your initial position. Lets assume that the hypothetical global standard is based on North American methods. (5 card majors, strong NT, yada, yada, yada). This guarantees that every one Poland (who is raised on Polish Club) and Great Britain (who is raised on Acol) and even France will be forced to learn both their local standard as well as the hypothetical global standard. [nige2] Consistently, I've argued that the law book should detail how you should disclose disclose departures from a standard system. I would prefer a global standard as a *default* although local legislatures could substitute a local standard like the Hanoi Heart, Leghorn Diamond, or Polish club. IMO, as the number of on-line players increases, "strong notrump and five card majors" will become an international common language. I teach "Standard English" Acol to my classes but already I am under pressure to switch to teaching a SAYC variant. Hence, I feel that such a system is quite likely to become a de-facto global standard. I may be wrong about this trend. Suppose then, that each legislature insists on keeping its own different standard system. Even so, the *underlying* disclosure rules (system cards, screens, bidding boxes, stop-cards, alerting or announcing, and so on) can still be part of the law-book and be the *same world-wide*. [Richard] I admit: A global standard, would in theory, provide some value to players who travel frequently between different regulatory Zones. However, I'd argue that the proposal fails on simple utilitarian grounds. The number of players who never play outside their own Zone vastly out numbers those who do. Why should we (dramatically) inconvenience the 99% of Poles, Brits, Aussies, etc who are never going to play a game in foreign country? Place the burden where it belongs: Those players who want to compete internationally should be the ones who need to spend time preparing. [nige2] I agree with the potential benefits but question Richard's numbers. No Bridge legislature shows any enthusiasm for polling players about practices or preferences. I argued, however, that, as on-line play increases, most players will become familiar with a SAYC-like system. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 14:39:15 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:39:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <4737F5E4.4020907@ntlworld.com> References: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0711111849j461f755bj7ff9f5fc9ee0422@mail.gmail.com> <4737F5E4.4020907@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0711120539o3c316ceei41ef69772d8d8186@mail.gmail.com> Out of curiousity, Nigel, do you have any actual experience playing online bridge? if so, which service are you using and how long have you been playing? (I'm trying to figure out if you have any real basis for your theories or are "just" engaged in idle speculation). Case in point: Right now, most online players claim to be familar with some SAYC type system. In actuality, none of them have the slightest clue what they are doing because there is no consensus regarding what SAYC actually is. Standard American Yellow Card started out as a fairly well defined system (It was a crappy system, but it was quite well defined). Over the course of a couple years, SAYC fragmented into a 1001 different approaches as everyone and their brother started trying to "improve" things while making no effort what-so-ever to preserve a clear nomenclature. Now-a-days no one has a clue whether or not their partner shares the same understand of every day sequences like the following 1S - 2N: Is this a forcing Spade raise? 1S - 2C - 2N: Is this forcing? 1C - 1H - 1S: Does this promise an unbalanced hand? How do you make a forcing raise of partner's minor? There is no evidence that the system is stabling. Indeed, I'd argue that it continues to splinter. Yeats said it best: Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 16:31:43 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:31:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0711120539o3c316ceei41ef69772d8d8186@mail.gmail.com> References: <541903.16101.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4737AD3E.3050900@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0711111849j461f755bj7ff9f5fc9ee0422@mail.gmail.com> <4737F5E4.4020907@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0711120539o3c316ceei41ef69772d8d8186@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473871DF.1080900@ntlworld.com> [richard willey] Out of curiousity, Nigel, do you have any actual experience playing online bridge? if so, which service are you using and how long have you been playing? (I'm trying to figure out if you have any real basis for your theories or are "just" engaged in idle speculation). [nige1] I could patronise in a similar vein but I'll just answer the question. MSN, OKBridge, and BBO. I prefer the latter and I've played for years in the "Funky Gibbons" in a BBO league. [richard] Case in point: Right now, most online players claim to be familar with some SAYC type system. In actuality, none of them have the slightest clue what they are doing because there is no consensus regarding what SAYC actually is. Standard American Yellow Card started out as a fairly well defined system (It was a crappy system, but it was quite well defined). Over the course of a couple years, SAYC fragmented into a 1001 different approaches as everyone and their brother started trying to "improve" things while making no effort what-so-ever to preserve a clear nomenclature. Now-a-days no one has a clue whether or not their partner shares the same understand of every day sequences like the following 1S - 2N: Is this a forcing Spade raise? 1S - 2C - 2N: Is this forcing? 1C - 1H - 1S: Does this promise an unbalanced hand? How do you make a forcing raise of partner's minor? There is no evidence that the system is stabling. Indeed, I'd argue that it continues to splinter. Yeats said it best: Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, [nige1] I suggested a SAYC *like* system. A simple system, well-defined, complete, and coherent. Some on-line players are beginners (even if they label themselves "expert" or whatever). That on'line Bridge encourages learners is great for the game. I concede that novices have a shallow knowledge of SAYC (but "no clue" is over the top). With increasing experience however, I hope that eventually most players will become familiar with a system like BW standard or WBF standard. IMO ... - systems are growing more *sophisticated* (Transfers, relays, splinters, fit jumps, Jacoby 2N, negative, competitive, responsive, support, and lead directing doubles and redoubles, Multis, low level and exclusion RKCB, Lebensohl, 2 way Drury and on and on and on). - but systems also seem to be *stabilizing*. Not just on-line but f2f as well. Notice how many players claim to employ most of the above gadgets) BTW, although I advocate a standard system (from which to disclose departures) I will continue to play something different and simpler, myself. IMO, one particular law that we should locally resist is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 12 16:56:48 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:56:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <473871DF.1080900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <911972.22816.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > - systems are growing more *sophisticated* > (Transfers, relays, > splinters, fit jumps, Jacoby 2N, negative, > competitive, responsive, > support, and lead directing doubles and redoubles, > Multis, low level > and exclusion RKCB, Lebensohl, 2 way Drury and on > and on and on). > What fun! I can't wait to start teaching the old dears in my club all of this stuff so that they can alert their deviations from it! I think that you overestimate the impact of online bridge. Most of the club players I know have never played online and never will. In your examples, well... you and your sister knew you were going to the French Club, and could have investigated the alert regulations. Requiring all players in France and North America to alert their three-card minor openings negates the whole purpose of alerts. As to the experience in Reading (was it?) The pair who were nasty are clearly to blame. This kind of behaviour is addressed in a different way than with alert regulations. However, it would be nice if clubs had available a summary of the disclosure regulations (rather like the one produced by the EBU after the changes in the Orange Book.) Even the ACBL convention card, with its different-coloured ink, is helpful in this regard. Nigel, it would be good if you accepted the fact that there will never be a "global system" that all bridge players will learn so that they can alert their deviations from it. Even if this system were somehow a good thing, it would be impossible in practice -- I have mentioned before how numerous are the long-time players who have not mastered their own system. I think that you are wasting your time and mental effort. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 17:51:59 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:51:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <911972.22816.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <911972.22816.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <473884AF.2080606@ntlworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] What fun! I can't wait to start teaching the old dears in my club all of this stuff so that they can alert their deviations from it! I think that you overestimate the impact of online bridge. Most of the club players I know have never played online and never will. In your examples, well... you and your sister knew you were going to the French Club, and could have investigated the alert regulations. Requiring all players in France and North America to alert their three-card minor openings negates the whole purpose of alerts. As to the experience in Reading (was it?) The pair who were nasty are clearly to blame. This kind of behaviour is addressed in a different way than with alert regulations. [nige1] I did *not* say that either pair was "nasty". The local pair felt that they were damaged and the argument became heated -- as it usually does when there are complex ill-understood regulations. As usual, IMO, the fault was with differing *local regulations* that the director and committee reluctantly and calmly administered, as best they could. [Stefanie] However, it would be nice if clubs had available a summary of the disclosure regulations (rather like the one produced by the EBU after the changes in the Orange Book.) Even the ACBL convention card, with its different-coloured ink, is helpful in this regard. It would be good if you accepted the fact that there will never be a "global system" that all bridge players will learn so that they can alert their deviations from it. Even if this system were somehow a good thing, it would be impossible in practice -- I have mentioned before how numerous are the long-time players who have not mastered their own system. I think that you are wasting your time and mental effort. [nige1] Probably, we're all wasting our time. I admit that change in f2f rules is unlikely in my life-time; I accept that many long-term players are just as unfamiliar with other bridge-systems as they are with local disclosure-rules. Unless rule-simplification occurs sometime soon, however, I fear that f2f bridge may fall into terminal decline. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Nov 12 23:21:10 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:21:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > The purpose of the footnote is to tell us what should be included in > "any normal play" [L70C3], "an alternative normal line of > play" [L70D1], "alternative normal plays" [L70D2], "any normal line > of play" [L70E1], or, again, "any normal play" [L71.2 -- BTW, > shouldn't that be L71B?]. Whatever it means specifically, it defines > the set of plays or lines of play which the TD is to consider when > "ascribing" a potential line of play for the purpose of assigning an > adjusted score under any of these five laws. There's also "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational" in L70E1. (Maybe that's what Eric had in mind in his next sentence, quoted below.) > L70E, and only L70E, > reduces that set by excluding alternative lines of play the > "adoption" of which would be "irrational". I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace would be irrational. I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx problem." Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would be irrational. The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that doesn't seem to be excluded by the language. Maybe this is a case where "the singular includes the plural" saves us. However, I share Eric's frustration that something that seems so integral to the game we know needs such subtle interpretation to get the answer everyone wants. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 13 01:23:02 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:23:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> References: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes: > I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace > would be irrational. I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx > problem." Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would > be irrational. The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that > doesn't seem to be excluded by the language. I don't think this is a problem because there are two separate plays. With A2 opposite K3, it is rational to lead the 2. Assuming there are opposing cards out, it is then irrational to play the 3. A more natural example is a finesse. It may be that the only rational play is to lead the 2 from 32 towards AQ, and then playing either the A or Q is rational. However, if the king appears, it then becomes irrational to play the queen under it. Thus we cannot determine whether playing the queen is irrational until the time to play the queen occurs, but we have already decided that leading the 2 was rational. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 13 01:23:02 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:23:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'normal' In-Reply-To: <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> References: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes: > I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace > would be irrational. I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx > problem." Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would > be irrational. The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that > doesn't seem to be excluded by the language. I don't think this is a problem because there are two separate plays. With A2 opposite K3, it is rational to lead the 2. Assuming there are opposing cards out, it is then irrational to play the 3. A more natural example is a finesse. It may be that the only rational play is to lead the 2 from 32 towards AQ, and then playing either the A or Q is rational. However, if the king appears, it then becomes irrational to play the queen under it. Thus we cannot determine whether playing the queen is irrational until the time to play the queen occurs, but we have already decided that leading the 2 was rational. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 13 03:27:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:27:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f In-Reply-To: <911972.22816.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <911972.22816.qm@web86110.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <16D63675-8F11-414C-860E-92743A1A655B@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > However, it would be nice if clubs had available a > summary of the disclosure regulations It is a "requirement" of the ACBL that sanctioned clubs post their regulations. None of the ones around here do that - in fact, one club TD told he'd been running that club for 25 years, had never posted any regs, and wasn't about to start. The ACBL frankly doesn't care, as long as the table fees keep rolling in. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 13:50:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:50:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002201c825f6$68fe7bf0$24cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' > There's also "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be > irrational" in L70E1. (Maybe that's what Eric had in mind in his next > sentence, quoted below.) > >> L70E, and only L70E, >> reduces that set by excluding alternative lines of play the >> "adoption" of which would be "irrational". > > I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace > would be irrational. I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx > problem." Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would > be irrational. The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that > doesn't seem to be excluded by the language. > > Maybe this is a case where "the singular includes the plural" saves us. > However, I share Eric's frustration that something that seems so > integral to the game we know needs such subtle interpretation to get the > answer everyone wants. > +=+ Blml betrays a penchant for jesuitical debate when it flogs such themes as this. I do not accept that the footnote relates to anything that is not normal play. A play that would be irrational, for any and every player, is not a normal play in my reading of the law. The footnote expands the scope of what is 'normal' but does not, can not, wholly set aside the requirement for normality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 13:50:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:50:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'normal' References: <200711091647.lA9GlLgR023265@cfa.harvard.edu> <4738D1D6.6060608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002201c825f6$68fe7bf0$24cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal' > There's also "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be > irrational" in L70E1. (Maybe that's what Eric had in mind in his next > sentence, quoted below.) > >> L70E, and only L70E, >> reduces that set by excluding alternative lines of play the >> "adoption" of which would be "irrational". > > I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace > would be irrational. I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx > problem." Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would > be irrational. The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that > doesn't seem to be excluded by the language. > > Maybe this is a case where "the singular includes the plural" saves us. > However, I share Eric's frustration that something that seems so > integral to the game we know needs such subtle interpretation to get the > answer everyone wants. > +=+ Blml betrays a penchant for jesuitical debate when it flogs such themes as this. I do not accept that the footnote relates to anything that is not normal play. A play that would be irrational, for any and every player, is not a normal play in my reading of the law. The footnote expands the scope of what is 'normal' but does not, can not, wholly set aside the requirement for normality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 13 19:01:17 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:01:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results Message-ID: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> On Bridgetalk, David Collier reports that, a couple of months ago, the EBU conducted a poll on disclosure regulations and with about 700 replies. I congratulate the EBU on this brave initiative and I regret having not recorded my views. [Survey results from the EBU site] Where do you play Bridge? Club 95.7%(712) County Events 69.09%(514) EBU Events 67.74%(504) Question 1 You are only able to make one choice of answer in each of the following sections Question 1 Announcing the value of an opening 1NT (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) Announcing all natural 1NT openers other than the 12 -14 1NT. I realise that I run the risk of the TD being called if I ask the value during the bidding.as this may be interpreted as giving unauthorised information to my partner. 20.97%(156) All opening natural 1NTs should be announced 42.34%(315) No opening 1NT should be announced. I realise that I run the risk of the TD being called if I ask the value during bidding.as this may be interpreted as giving unauthorised information to my partner. 14.65%(109) Pre alert all 1NT openings. i.e. at the beginning of the round. I realise that I run the risk of the TD being called if I ask the value during the bidding.as this may be interpreted as giving unauthorised information to my partner. 21.64%(161) Question 2 Announcing Stayman over a 1NT opening (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) Stayman should be announced. 42.61%(317) Stayman should be alerted. I realise that I run the risk of the TD being called if I ask questions about the 2C bid as this may be interpreted as giving unauthorised information to my partner. 20.56%(153) Stayman should neither be alerted or announced so any 2C response to a 1NT opener that is alerted will be something other than Stayman. 36.56%(272) Question 3 Announcing a transfer over a 1NT opener (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) Announce the transfer bid suit i.e. hearts or spades. 44.35%(330) Announce the transfer bid as transfer. 25.4%(189) Alert the transfer bid. I realise that I run the risk of the TD being called if I ask the meaning as this may be interpreted as giving unauthorised information to my partner. 29.57%(220) Question 4 Doubles (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) The only doubles that should be alerted are all take out doubles below 3NT. 12.23%(91) The only doubles that should be alerted are all penalty doubles below 3NT. 13.44%(100) No doubles should be alerted below 3NT. 22.58%(168) All doubles should be alerted including supportive, take out, penalty, lead directing etc?below 3NT. 6.18%(46) Alert all non take out doubles below 3NT. 16.53%(123) All non-penalty doubles of NT bids below 3NT should be alerted; all non-takeout doubles of suit bids below 3NT should be alerted. 28.23%(210) Question 5 Alerting over 3NT (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) Re-introduce alerting over 3NT. 26.48%(197) Retain no alerting over 3NT. 73.12%(544) Question 6 2 level suit openings (Please choose one option that meets your personal preference from the choices below.) Should all be alerted. 12.63%(94) Should all be announced. 20.83%(155) Artificial bids should be alerted & natural bids announced. 36.56%(272) Artificial bids should be alerted. 29.57%(220) End of Questionaire From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 14 16:24:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:24:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results In-Reply-To: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> For what its worth my answers ... I enjoy Club, County, and National events and my preferences are ... [1] All opening natural 1Ns should be announced *as now* [2] Stayman should be announced *as now* [3] Over 1N opener, announce the transfer bid suit *as now* [4] No doubles should be alerted below 3N (Unfortunately, the survey did not list my preferred option -- that all doubles be *announced*. Failing that: takeout and penalty doubles be announced and others alerted). [5] "Retain" no alerting over 3N. (*no real change* but the survey question is flawed because some artificial openers and some *calls* are currently alertable above 3N) [6] 2 level suit openings should all be announced. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Nov 14 19:04:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:04:45 EST Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results Message-ID: In a message dated 14/11/2007 15:38:02 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [4] No doubles should be alerted below 3N (Unfortunately, the survey did not list my preferred option -- that all doubles be *announced*. Indeed. The EBU survey did instead offer the bizarre option that one could select "all doubles will be alerted". Ideal for the colour blind. From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 14 19:23:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:23:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results > For what its worth my answers ... yeah, Nigel. Much in line with my views. I like the idea of announcing doubles. It's no pain to adjust when its wrong. I think "transfer" is better than "hearts" or "spades" but the "not invented here" syndrome applies and the EBU went a different route from the Yanks. So much for internationalising bridge, where we're agreed on the concept though the implementation causes us some mild disagreements (sic) from time to time :) cheers John. > > I enjoy Club, County, and National events and my preferences are ... > > [1] All opening natural 1Ns should be announced *as now* > > [2] Stayman should be announced *as now* > > [3] Over 1N opener, announce the transfer bid suit *as now* > > [4] No doubles should be alerted below 3N > (Unfortunately, the survey did not list my preferred option -- that > all doubles be *announced*. Failing that: takeout and penalty doubles > be announced and others alerted). > > [5] "Retain" no alerting over 3N. > (*no real change* but the survey question is flawed because some > artificial openers and some *calls* are currently alertable above 3N) > > [6] 2 level suit openings should all be announced. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 20:53:54 2007 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:53:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results In-Reply-To: <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous. Collins On Nov 14, 2007 1:23 PM, John Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results > > > > For what its worth my answers ... > > yeah, Nigel. Much in line with my views. I like the idea of announcing > doubles. It's no pain to adjust when its wrong. I think "transfer" is better > than "hearts" or "spades" but the "not invented here" syndrome applies and > the EBU went a different route from the Yanks. So much for > internationalising bridge, where we're agreed on the concept though the > implementation causes us some mild disagreements (sic) from time to time :) > cheers John. > > > > > > I enjoy Club, County, and National events and my preferences are ... > > > > [1] All opening natural 1Ns should be announced *as now* > > > > [2] Stayman should be announced *as now* > > > > [3] Over 1N opener, announce the transfer bid suit *as now* > > > > [4] No doubles should be alerted below 3N > > (Unfortunately, the survey did not list my preferred option -- that > > all doubles be *announced*. Failing that: takeout and penalty doubles > > be announced and others alerted). > > > > [5] "Retain" no alerting over 3N. > > (*no real change* but the survey question is flawed because some > > artificial openers and some *calls* are currently alertable above 3N) > > > > [6] 2 level suit openings should all be announced. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 21:00:02 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:00:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results In-Reply-To: References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> On Nov 14, 2007 1:53 PM, Collins Williams wrote: > Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them > right more often? > > Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I find myself in > auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far more often than > the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous. > > Collins > Agreed. As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only be in effect if the announcment will almost never give surprise UI to partner. Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for this condition to me met. Announcements are best for very well-defined and limited situations. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 15 00:01:10 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:01:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> [Collins Williams] Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous. [Jerry Fusselman] Agreed. As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only be in effect if the announcement will almost never give surprise UI to partner. Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for this condition to be met. Announcements are best for very well-defined and limited situations. [Nige1] When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for strategy [A] below ... [A] *Sometimes* ask. [B] *Always* ask now. [C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction. IMO option [A] should be illegal. If you adopt option [A] then you are likely to convey unauthorised information. Poor partner must try to avoid those options suggested by that unauthorised information. It disadvantages an ethical partner who will frequently be inhibited from taking the best action. This option deliberately subjects players to avoidable temptation. If you adopt strategy [B], you may as well have announcements instead of alerts -- because announcements are then about twice as quick as alerts -- announcements save the time taken -- for an opponent to wave an alert card around and -- for you to ask a question. You can save even more palaver and unauthorised information, if (as I advocate) a new rule allowed you to *switch them off*. This is roughly equivalent to option [C] but eliminates more unauthorised information. I concede that, to begin with, this rule might result in half-alerts (or half-announcements) -- from habit -- that the director would have to treat as unauthorised information. Manifestly, however, it eliminates far more unauthorised information than it engenders. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 00:12:57 2007 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:12:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Nov 14, 2007 6:01 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Collins Williams] > Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them > right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I > find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far > more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > Agreed. As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only > be in effect if the announcement will almost never give surprise UI to > partner. Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for > this condition to be met. Announcements are best for very well-defined > and limited situations. > > [Nige1] > When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for > strategy [A] below ... > [A] *Sometimes* ask. > [B] *Always* ask now. > [C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction. > > IMO option [A] should be illegal. If you adopt option [A] then you are > likely to convey unauthorised information. Poor partner must try to > avoid those options suggested by that unauthorised information. It > disadvantages an ethical partner who will frequently be inhibited from > taking the best action. This option deliberately subjects players to > avoidable temptation. With a partner of whom you have any significant experience UI abounds. It is impossible not to provide UI (especially in a non-screens environment). Those same partner's are (one hopes) of the highest ethical standard and so can deal with the UI problems (that occur on every hand) correctly. Pairs who whether by intent or by subconscious incorporation of the UI generated by questions or the lack thereof to their advantage are exhibiting a behavior indistinguishable from that of a pair that cheats. > > If you adopt strategy [B], you may as well have announcements instead > of alerts -- because announcements are then about twice as quick as > alerts -- announcements save the time taken > -- for an opponent to wave an alert card around and > -- for you to ask a question. > > You can save even more palaver and unauthorised information, if (as I > advocate) a new rule allowed you to *switch them off*. This is roughly > equivalent to option [C] but eliminates more unauthorised information. > > I concede that, to begin with, this rule might result in half-alerts > (or half-announcements) -- from habit -- that the director would have > to treat as unauthorised information. > > Manifestly, however, it eliminates far more unauthorised information > than it engenders. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 00:23:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:23:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711141523o55eba03ai27eafa7efc72fb4d@mail.gmail.com> [Collins Williams] Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous. [Jerry Fusselman] Agreed. As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only be in effect if the announcement will almost never give surprise UI to partner. Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for this condition to be met. Announcements are best for very well-defined and limited situations. [Nige1] When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for strategy [A] below ... [A] *Sometimes* ask. [B] *Always* ask now. [C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction. [Jerry] You assume wrong. My partner and ask about almost every alert that is not covered by the convention card. But for doubles in the ACBL, the convention card usually covers it. This covers most doubles. When the convention card is no help, we ask every time. We like to understand their auctions, regardless of our own hands. Every time, that is, except for when the director is overly passive and confusion on their part is manifest. Anyway, our agreements only rarely depend on the meaning of their doubles. Not asking when the convention card does not cover it is so rare for us that I cannot recall a recent case. Alerted doubles in the ACBL are rather rare, because the unalertable meanings are usually considered best. And the alerted doubles usually have a meaning that is sufficiently clear from the convention card. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 15 01:31:11 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:31:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] EBU Disclosure Survey Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <767970.48572.qm@web86112.mail.ird.yahoo.com> nigel guthrie: > > [4] No doubles should be alerted below 3N > (Unfortunately, the survey did not list my > preferred option -- that > all doubles be *announced*. > paul lamford: > Indeed. The EBU survey did instead offer the bizarre > option that one could > select "all doubles will be alerted". Ideal for the > colour blind. Yes. You could just add the word "alert" to the double card. I do think that announcing doubles is far too helpful to the alerting side. In complicated auctions, these can get very murky. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 15 13:32:03 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:32:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? review. Message-ID: <001e01c82783$ab342720$beca403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "There be many wise men that have secret hearts and transparent countenances." ~ Francis Bacon. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Herman De Wael wrote: "This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT=" ............................................................................... I have obtained details of the Antalya case and have summarised it as follows: > 1. Declarer is in a small slam which must go one down. > 2. Defender revokes; application of law will now give > declarer twelve tricks. > 3. This is the situation, and the equity, immediately before > defender revokes for a second time in the same suit. > 4. Defender revokes a second time in the same suit. Under > Law 64B2 there is no penalty for this, but the second > revoke causes declarer to go four light. > 5. Declarer, a non-offending party, is entitled to be sufficiently > compensated under Law 64C. Equity is to be restored with > an adjusted score. The 'equity' is (Code of Practice) the > "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction". > 6. Immediately prior to the second infraction, now under > scrutiny, the equity was 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, > which is to say small slam made. This was the number of > tricks awarded (I have doubly confirmed that the adjusted > score was 12 tricks). > 7. Assuming that had the second infraction not occurred the > result would have been 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, > I am at a loss to see what alternative might be considered to > exist in this case. > 8. Under the 2007 laws (12B1) 'damage' is defined as "a table > result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the infraction not occurred". Unless declarer then added > to his damage, by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) > or by wild or gambling action, see12C1(b), it appears the > score adjustment would be the same. ......................................................................................... According to my firm information (above) the award in Antalya did not correspond to the 'equity' prior to the first revoke. It did in fact correspond to the equity prior to the second revoke. So where does this leave us with Konrad's invention? In his 'first case' the equity is determined by the expectation at the point when Spade 10 is led from dummy, defender committing no infraction at this point. If I have understood correctly this was 1NT+2? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 15 15:26:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:26:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Nov 14, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Collins Williams] > Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them > right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I > find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far > more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is > ambiguous. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > Agreed. As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only > be in effect if the announcement will almost never give surprise UI to > partner. Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for > this condition to be met. Announcements are best for very well-defined > and limited situations. > > [Nige1] > When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for > strategy [A] below ... > [A] *Sometimes* ask. > [B] *Always* ask now. > [C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction. > > IMO option [A] should be illegal. If you adopt option [A] then you are > likely to convey unauthorised information. Poor partner must try to > avoid those options suggested by that unauthorised information. It > disadvantages an ethical partner who will frequently be inhibited from > taking the best action. This option deliberately subjects players to > avoidable temptation. > > If you adopt strategy [B], you may as well have announcements instead > of alerts -- because announcements are then about twice as quick as > alerts -- announcements save the time taken > -- for an opponent to wave an alert card around and > -- for you to ask a question. > > You can save even more palaver and unauthorised information, if (as I > advocate) a new rule allowed you to *switch them off*. This is roughly > equivalent to option [C] but eliminates more unauthorised information. > > I concede that, to begin with, this rule might result in half-alerts > (or half-announcements) -- from habit -- that the director would have > to treat as unauthorised information. > > Manifestly, however, it eliminates far more unauthorised information > than it engenders. Then there's strategy [D] ([A']?), which works best if you take a moment to peruse your opponents' CC before the round starts: Ask when you don't already know the answer. Good players use the disclosure procedures, including asking questions, in order to follow their opponents' auction and build a picture of the opponents' hands based on their bidding. They do this whether or not they are considering entering the auction. This conveys no intrinsic UI despite falling to the category of "'sometimes' ask". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 15 15:30:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:30:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? review. In-Reply-To: <001e01c82783$ab342720$beca403e@Hellen> References: <001e01c82783$ab342720$beca403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <473C57E8.5040205@skynet.be> Is this a ruling by Max or Antonio? Did the other agree? I did not see this case. Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "There be many wise men that have secret > hearts and transparent countenances." > ~ Francis Bacon. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ Herman De Wael wrote: > "This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top > directors (and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on > the situation before the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets > 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT=" > ............................................................................... > I have obtained details of the Antalya case and have > summarised it as follows: > is in a small slam which must go one down. >> 2. Defender revokes; application of law will now give >> declarer twelve tricks. >> 3. This is the situation, and the equity, immediately before >> defender revokes for a second time in the same suit. >> 4. Defender revokes a second time in the same suit. Under >> Law 64B2 there is no penalty for this, but the second >> revoke causes declarer to go four light. >> 5. Declarer, a non-offending party, is entitled to be sufficiently >> compensated under Law 64C. Equity is to be restored with >> an adjusted score. The 'equity' is (Code of Practice) the >> "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction". >> 6. Immediately prior to the second infraction, now under >> scrutiny, the equity was 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, >> which is to say small slam made. This was the number of >> tricks awarded (I have doubly confirmed that the adjusted >> score was 12 tricks). >> 7. Assuming that had the second infraction not occurred the >> result would have been 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, >> I am at a loss to see what alternative might be considered to >> exist in this case. >> 8. Under the 2007 laws (12B1) 'damage' is defined as "a table >> result less favourable than would have been the expectation >> had the infraction not occurred". Unless declarer then added >> to his damage, by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) >> or by wild or gambling action, see12C1(b), it appears the >> score adjustment would be the same. > ......................................................................................... > According to my firm information (above) the award in Antalya did > not correspond to the 'equity' prior to the first revoke. It did in fact > correspond to the equity prior to the second revoke. So where > does this leave us with Konrad's invention? In his 'first case' the > equity is determined by the expectation at the point when Spade 10 > is led from dummy, defender committing no infraction at this point. > If I have understood correctly this was 1NT+2? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 15 16:14:11 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:14:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <473C6243.3020704@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] Then there's strategy [D] ([A']?), which works best if you take a moment to peruse your opponents' CC before the round starts: Ask when you don't already know the answer. Good players use the disclosure procedures, including asking questions, in order to follow their opponents' auction and build a picture of the opponents' hands based on their bidding. They do this whether or not they are considering entering the auction. This conveys no intrinsic UI despite falling to the category of "'sometimes' ask". [nige1] Good point Eric! Jerry's and Eric's strategy is fine provided that [A] You carefully check opponents' system card [B] You believe that the card omits no significant details. That you can rely on this with such confidence is a tribute to the orthogonal layout of the American system card and the calligraphy and accuracy of American players. I'm ashamed to confess, that in this country, players are less assiduous about completing system cards, so that further elucidation is almost always needed. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 15 22:25:46 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:25:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> References: <4739E66D.2050000@ntlworld.com> <473B1336.5030609@ntlworld.com> <001101c826eb$6e3b01b0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0711141200p6e198da6j980e049bc95c1f43@mail.gmail.com> <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <33C3AA1B-DF20-485A-B114-51B9B46E5093@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 14, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Guthrie wrote: > announcements save the time taken > -- for an opponent to wave an alert card around Not in the ACBL. From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 15 22:41:12 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:41:12 +0900 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau writes: >Good players use the disclosure procedures, including asking >questions, in order to follow their opponents' auction and build a >picture of the opponents' hands based on their bidding. They do this >whether or not they are considering entering the auction. This >conveys no intrinsic UI despite falling to the category of >"'sometimes' ask". I guess I'm not a good player. :-) I (and many other "not good players") prefer if at all possible to wait for the end of the auction (before the opening lead, or after partner has placed the faced down lead on the table if 3rd hand) to ask, because it seems that most of the time the answers to the questions are helpful to the opposing pair in avoiding misunderstandings. Of course the opponents are using UI, but the situations are frquently borderline and directors are frequently reluctant to rule against relatively inexperienced pairs in less than clearcut situations. Not asking till the end of the auction means you need to be reasonably familiar with the oppts methods but a quick glance at their convention card plus general familiarity with the methods being used is almost always sufficient. Because "announcements" are alerts with automatically added explanations they can be of great benefit to the announcing side in avoiding misunderstandings. In any case, the JCBL tourney regulations don't authorize announcements. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 15 23:27:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:27:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller ................... > Because "announcements" are alerts with automatically added explanations > they can be of great benefit to the announcing side in avoiding > misunderstandings. In any case, the JCBL tourney regulations don't > authorize announcements. Neither do we in Norway, nor (AFAIK) in the rest of Scandinavia. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 16 03:59:26 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:59:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <473D078E.3010203@ntlworld.com> [Bob Geller] I (and many other "not good players") prefer if at all possible to wait for the end of the auction (before the opening lead, or after partner has placed the faced down lead on the table if 3rd hand) to ask, because it seems that most of the time the answers to the questions are helpful to the opposing pair in avoiding misunderstandings. Of course the opponents are using UI, but the situations are frquently borderline and directors are frequently reluctant to rule against relatively inexperienced pairs in less than clearcut situations. Not asking till the end of the auction means you need to be reasonably familiar with the oppts methods but a quick glance at their convention card plus general familiarity with the methods being used is almost always sufficient. Because "announcements" are alerts with automatically added explanations they can be of great benefit to the announcing side in avoiding misunderstandings. In any case, the JCBL tourney regulations don't authorize announcements. [nige1] IMO, Bob's preferred option makes the best of a bad job but one of the suggested rules would achieve a better outcome: the new rule that allowed you to *switch off* all alerts and announcements. Recently, a UK regulation banned most alerts above 3N. Without the UI from alerts, misunderstandings inevitably occur. Sometimes auctions spiral out of control. This would probably happen more often, if players were penalized for the dreaded "half-alert* twitch. In the past, when you could prevent opponents from alerting any bids at all, the resulting misunderstandings were worth a couple of tops per session. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 07:35:38 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:35:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473D078E.3010203@ntlworld.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <473D078E.3010203@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20071116013538.4bf76cde@linuxbox> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:59:26 +0000 Guthrie wrote: <...> > In the > past, when you could prevent opponents from alerting any bids at > all, the resulting misunderstandings were worth a couple of tops per > session. > Like Nigel, I've played for long enough under EBU regulations to remember when the EBU allowed you to ask opponents not to alert (then they went through a phase of allowing it but asking you not to do so, and finally removed the option). Speaking as someone who played a few rather unusual gadgets (at least they were in those days), we were always delighted to be asked not to alert, I agree with Nigel that the resulting misunderstandings from "no alerts, please" showed a profit, but more often than not, it was in *our* direction. :-) Opponents would look at our CC, read the top line which said "Strong Club with Multis", tell us "no alerts", and chaos would ensue if one of our unusual openers came up, especially our artificial 1NT opener. AFAIR, the EBU's reason for removing the option was that asking opps not to alert caused too many director calls, and I can certainly vouch for that being the case! Brian. -- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 11:11:09 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:11:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On 15/11/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > ................... > > Because "announcements" are alerts with automatically added explanations > > they can be of great benefit to the announcing side in avoiding > > misunderstandings. In any case, the JCBL tourney regulations don't > > authorize announcements. > > Neither do we in Norway, nor (AFAIK) in the rest of Scandinavia. That's correct. But our Laws Committee (or at least part of it) is considering implementing announcements in our regulations. I seem to remember having heard that's the case in Denmark too, but I might be wrong on that point. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071116/ba21305f/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 16 16:35:20 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:35:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com><000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "There be many wise men that have secret hearts and transparent countenances." ~ Francis Bacon. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Harald Skj?ran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Announce or alert? On 15/11/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Geller ................... > Because "announcements" are alerts with automatically > added explanations they can be of great benefit to the > announcing side in avoiding misunderstandings. In any > case, the JCBL tourney regulations don't authorize > announcements. Neither do we in Norway, nor (AFAIK) in the rest of Scandinavia. That's correct. But our Laws Committee (or at least part of it) is considering implementing announcements in our regulations. I seem to remember having heard that's the case in Denmark too, but I might be wrong on that point. +=+ It does seem to me that announcements are a good thing when the announced meaning is clearly something that the partners will not get wrong. Opening bids and responses thereto, for example. I am less sure of them in competitive situations. I offer opinion that experiment initially could be confined to meanings of the first type. After experience consider further developments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 16 18:12:20 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:12:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Message-ID: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Grattan Endicott gesta at tiscali.co.uk [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "There be many wise men that have secret hearts and transparent countenances." ~ Francis Bacon. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ For the benefit of Herman De Wael I quote below exchange of opinion with Max Bavin (who will not be drawn into further open correspondence on the subject). I quoted the Konrad question and the reference by Herman to an Antalya decision. I asked him to clarify: Max replied: "The Antalya case was indeed directly comparable. Declarer was playing in a hopeless small slam; it was destined for 1-off. However, a defender revoked. The revoke didn't actually cost anything; declarer still had the same 11 tricks as before. But, add one trick for the revoke penalty and the contract would be made. However, the defender revoked for a second time (in the same suit) and this cost declarer plenty of tricks. He lost control of the hand and the contract went 4-off. The ruling we gave at the time was 'contract made'. I did actually mention it to you at the time. I was aware that Edgar would have disagreed, as he had always maintained that "equity" is the equity of the hand without any revokes at all. There was no appeal (shame really; but then could we trust all appeal committees to get it right?). Later that day over dinner we were discussing the case with Ton and Herman. I did indeed become persuaded that 'punishment' has no part to play in determining 'equity'. So, the equity of the hand is 1-off; comparable to 1NT just making in the case below. However, I was most uncomfortable about this; I just don't like the idea that you can revoke for a second time and end up better off than had you followed suit. So, I concluded that 72B1 is the way to go. It is true that I did not share my 72B1 thoughts with Herman, or with anyone else for that matter, so he will be unaware of this. But next time I get the case I'll still be ruling slam made, and one day this might even get tested by an appeal committee. Herman does not know that this is what I intend, and for sure he will disagree with me; I think Antonio might also disagree. I'm not so sure where yourself and Ton stand on this at present. Basically, I am persuaded that punishment has nothing to do with equity. But it does not then follow that I am a member of the slam off or no overtricks in 1NT brigade as I am content that 72B1 offers the solution. Your correspondent makes some excellent points, including casting doubt on whether 72B1 really solves the case (though clearly he's already considered the 72B1 solution for himself - well done for that). As he correctly says, we end up in 12C2 and with the most favourable result likely had THE irregularity not occurred. But I think we're still OK. True, if there was no irregularity at all then the slam goes off (and there are no overtricks in 1NT). But I'm using 72B1 for the second revoke - not for the first one. The irregularity is the second revoke; what is outcome of the hand if this had not occurred? Answer: small slam made in my case, and 1NT+2 in the (Konrad Ciborowski) case below. I am happy to be quoted on this (though I don't then want a whole load of BLML correspondence as a result)." .................................................................................... To the above I replied: I am having difficulty getting my head round the Antalya case. Let me break it down into its parts: 1. Declarer is in a small slam which must go one down. 2. Defender revokes; application of law will now give declarer twelve tricks. 3. This is the situation, and the equity, immediately before defender revokes for a second time in the same suit. 4. Defender revokes a second time in the same suit. Under Law 64B2 there is no penalty for this, but the second revoke causes declarer to go four light. 5. Declarer, a non-offending party, is entitled to be sufficiently compensated under Law 64C. Equity is to be restored with an adjusted score. The 'equity' is (Code of Practice) the "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction". 6. Immediately prior to the second infraction, now under scrutiny, the equity was 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, which is to say small slam made. This was the number of tricks awarded. 7. Assuming that had the second infraction not occurred the result would have been 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, I am at a loss to see what alternative might exist in this case. Can you enlighten me as to the nature of my confusion? Where is the gain in this by the offender? 8. Under the 2007 laws (12B1) 'damage' is defined as "a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". Unless declarer then added to his damage, by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action, see12C1(b), it appears the score adjustment would be the same ..................................................................................... There was then a comment from David Burn, who was privy to the exchange. He said (and I think he, too, will not object to being quoted): "What Max says is obviously right. Suppose that South plays in a slam that is going down one, but East revokes so that (after adjustment) it will make. At this point, the "equity" for both sides is that the slam makes - there is no question of "punishment", but the "equity" in any position in any game can be established only when taking into account what might happen in the future having already taken into account whatever penalties may be appropriate for what has taken place in the past. Now suppose that East, instead of revoking again, shoots declarer through the head. This is an irregularity per (1997) Law 74A2, since it has clearly interfered with declarer's enjoyment of the game. Fortunately South is part of a team of six, so the match can continue at least until such time as East is properly arraigned for murder, a process that according to the latest crime statistics could take anything up to forty years. What should the result on the board be? That the slam made, of course." ........................................................................................... Max further commented: "We are in total agreement that the final outcome of the hand should be 12 tricks made. Indeed, this was the ruling I gave in Antalya and it's the ruling I will give the next time it happens as well. The people who are in disagreement are Herman (for sure) and Antonio (probably). So too was Kaplan, I think, as he was once quoted as saying that the equity was the situation without any revokes at all - in other words 11 tricks in the Antalya case. You are content that 64C leads us straight to this solution; so too is Burn. I am not so sure that it does, but am content that 72B1 leads us to the same solution. Antonio's view is that punishment has no role to play in determining equity. In other words, that we should consider the outcome of the hand as though the revoke law was 'there is no automatic penalty for a revoke, but the Director shall restore any damage which arises therefrom'. The first revoke does not actually damage declarer, so the equity of the hand is still 1-off at that stage. I can tell as I write that you are not going to be convinced one jot, because I confess that neither am I. Maybe you should ask Herman or Antonio to try to convince you?" .............................................................................................. My position in regard to all of the above is this: 1. David Burn expresses well the logic of the situation. I am in complete agreement with him. 2. Kaplan's opinion went out of the window in 1999 when we redefined damage (ergo equity) in the WBF Code of Practice. Along with that goes Herman's argument. 3. Let me remind you once more of that CoP definition: "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Study this with care, and in particular the word 'expectation'. The expected *result* in the Antalya case in the instant prior to the second infraction was twelve tricks. 4. Moving to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the fact that the definition of damage is henceforward consolidated into the law (see 12B1) gives added force to the foregoing. The laws establish plainly enough that the second revoke is a separate infraction from the first (as Max observes in his comments). ......................................................................................... Amen, as a friend would say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 16 19:12:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:12:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> References: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <473DDD80.8010600@skynet.be> This is all very interesting, but let me correct one thing. I was, originally, also in the opinion of Max's, that the equity should be regarded after the first revoke. I knew this was in contention, with Ton and Antonio on one side, and Max on the other. I heard about the first conversation alluded to below, in which Max agreed to align himself with Ton and Antonio, and I heralded this as a breakthrough. I decided to join in the unison, for whatever that's worth. Indeed, there are things to be said for both points, and I prefer unison above division. If Max now states that he intends to break the unison again, I would be happy to remain in his "camp". But I would like to investigate this through the 2007 laws first. Apart from the corrections about my views, mistakenly reported below, I found this exchange very interesting. Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > [also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "There be many wise men that have secret > hearts and transparent countenances." > ~ Francis Bacon. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ For the benefit of Herman De Wael I quote below > exchange of opinion with Max Bavin (who will not be > drawn into further open correspondence on the subject). > I quoted the Konrad question and the reference by > Herman to an Antalya decision. I asked him to clarify: > Max replied: > > "The Antalya case was indeed directly comparable. Declarer > was playing in a hopeless small slam; it was destined for 1-off. > However, a defender revoked. The revoke didn't actually > cost anything; declarer still had the same 11 tricks as before. > But, add one trick for the revoke penalty and the contract > would be made. > However, the defender revoked for a second time (in the > same suit) and this cost declarer plenty of tricks. He lost > control of the hand and the contract went 4-off. > The ruling we gave at the time was 'contract made'. I did > actually mention it to you at the time. I was aware that Edgar > would have disagreed, as he had always maintained that > "equity" is the equity of the hand without any revokes at all. > There was no appeal (shame really; but then could we trust > all appeal committees to get it right?). > Later that day over dinner we were discussing the case with > Ton and Herman. I did indeed become persuaded that > 'punishment' has no part to play in determining 'equity'. So, > the equity of the hand is 1-off; comparable to 1NT just making > in the case below. > However, I was most uncomfortable about this; I just > don't like the idea that you can revoke for a second time and > end up better off than had you followed suit. So, I concluded > that 72B1 is the way to go. It is true that I did not share my > 72B1 thoughts with Herman, or with anyone else for that > matter, so he will be unaware of this. But next time I get the > case I'll still be ruling slam made, and one day this might even > get tested by an appeal committee. Herman does not know > that this is what I intend, and for sure he will disagree with me; > I think Antonio might also disagree. I'm not so sure where > yourself and Ton stand on this at present. > Basically, I am persuaded that punishment has nothing to do > with equity. But it does not then follow that I am a member > of the slam off or no overtricks in 1NT brigade as I am > content that 72B1 offers the solution. > Your correspondent makes some excellent points, including > casting doubt on whether 72B1 really solves the case (though > clearly he's already considered the 72B1 solution for himself - > well done for that). As he correctly says, we end up in 12C2 > and with the most favourable result likely had THE irregularity > not occurred. But I think we're still OK. True, if there was no > irregularity at all then the slam goes off (and there are no > overtricks in 1NT). > But I'm using 72B1 for the second revoke - not for the > first one. The irregularity is the second revoke; what is > outcome of the hand if this had not occurred? > Answer: small slam made in my case, and 1NT+2 in > the (Konrad Ciborowski) case below. > I am happy to be quoted on this (though I don't then > want a whole load of BLML correspondence as a result)." > .................................................................................... > To the above I replied: > I am having difficulty getting my head round the Antalya > case. Let me break it down into its parts: > 1. Declarer is in a small slam which must go one down. > 2. Defender revokes; application of law will now give > declarer twelve tricks. > 3. This is the situation, and the equity, immediately before > defender revokes for a second time in the same suit. > 4. Defender revokes a second time in the same suit. Under > Law 64B2 there is no penalty for this, but the second > revoke causes declarer to go four light. > 5. Declarer, a non-offending party, is entitled to be sufficiently > compensated under Law 64C. Equity is to be restored with > an adjusted score. The 'equity' is (Code of Practice) the > "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction". > 6. Immediately prior to the second infraction, now under > scrutiny, the equity was 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, > which is to say small slam made. This was the number of > tricks awarded. > 7. Assuming that had the second infraction not occurred the > result would have been 11 tricks plus one to be transferred, > I am at a loss to see what alternative might exist in this case. > Can you enlighten me as to the nature of my confusion? > Where is the gain in this by the offender? > 8. Under the 2007 laws (12B1) 'damage' is defined as "a table > result less favourable than would have been the expectation > had the infraction not occurred". Unless declarer then added > to his damage, by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) > or by wild or gambling action, see12C1(b), it appears the > score adjustment would be the same > ..................................................................................... > There was then a comment from David Burn, who was privy > to the exchange. He said (and I think he, too, will not object to > being quoted): > "What Max says is obviously right. Suppose that South plays > in a slam that is going down one, but East revokes so that (after > adjustment) it will make. At this point, the "equity" for both > sides is that the slam makes - there is no question of "punishment", > but the "equity" in any position in any game can be established > only when taking into account what might happen in the future > having already taken into account whatever penalties may be > appropriate for what has taken place in the past. > > Now suppose that East, instead of revoking again, shoots > declarer through the head. This is an irregularity per (1997) Law > 74A2, since it has clearly interfered with declarer's enjoyment of > the game. Fortunately South is part of a team of six, so the > match can continue at least until such time as East is properly > arraigned for murder, a process that according to the latest > crime statistics could take anything up to forty years. > > What should the result on the board be? That the slam made, > of course." > ........................................................................................... > Max further commented: > "We are in total agreement that the final outcome of the hand > should be 12 tricks made. Indeed, this was the ruling I gave > in Antalya and it's the ruling I will give the next time it happens > as well. The people who are in disagreement are Herman (for > sure) and Antonio (probably). So too was Kaplan, I think, as > he was once quoted as saying that the equity was the situation > without any revokes at all - in other words 11 tricks in the > Antalya case. You are content that 64C leads us straight to > this solution; so too is Burn. I am not so sure that it does, but > am content that 72B1 leads us to the same solution. > Antonio's view is that punishment has no role to play in > determining equity. In other words, that we should consider > the outcome of the hand as though the revoke law was 'there > is no automatic penalty for a revoke, but the Director shall > restore any damage which arises therefrom'. The first revoke > does not actually damage declarer, so the equity of the hand > is still 1-off at that stage. I can tell as I write that you are not > going to be convinced one jot, because I confess that neither > am I. Maybe you should ask Herman or Antonio to try to > convince you?" > .............................................................................................. > My position in regard to all of the above is this: > 1. David Burn expresses well the logic of the situation. I am > in complete agreement with him. > 2. Kaplan's opinion went out of the window in 1999 when > we redefined damage (ergo equity) in the WBF Code of > Practice. Along with that goes Herman's argument. > 3. Let me remind you once more of that CoP definition: > "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would > have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." > Study this with care, and in particular the word 'expectation'. > The expected *result* in the Antalya case in the instant prior > to the second infraction was twelve tricks. > 4. Moving to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the fact that > the definition of damage is henceforward consolidated into the > law (see 12B1) gives added force to the foregoing. The laws > establish plainly enough that the second revoke is a separate > infraction from the first (as Max observes in his comments). > ......................................................................................... > Amen, as a friend would say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 20:17:52 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:17:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711161117w370dc72fq573bc1be6ccacda6@mail.gmail.com> On Nov 16, 2007 9:35 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > That's correct. But our Laws Committee (or at least part > of it) is considering implementing announcements in our > regulations. I seem to remember having heard that's the > case in Denmark too, but I might be wrong on that point. > > +=+ It does seem to me that announcements are a good > thing when the announced meaning is clearly something > that the partners will not get wrong. Opening bids and > responses thereto, for example. I am less sure of them > in competitive situations. I offer opinion that experiment > initially could be confined to meanings of the first type. > After experience consider further developments. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree with Grattan's offered opinion, but it may be worth noting that ACBL is not perfectly in agreement. In the ACLB, we announce transfers (D to H and H to S), at any level, even in competition, and over natural notrump openings, overcalls, and opener's natural notrump first rebid. See http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html Jerry Fusselman. From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 16 20:37:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:37:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity In-Reply-To: <473DDD80.8010600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c82888$2de2a2f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> A player revokes and I am called to the table just after the revoke has become established. I must now instruct the play to continue; and to comply with my duty as the Director I must inform the players how their play will eventually affect the result in transferring zero, one or two tricks. So far no problem, but please avoid establishing any interpretation of "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender to revoke a second time in the same suit in order to avoid corrections under Law 64A and instead have both his irregularities jointly corrected under Law 64C when this correction for "equity" is more favourable to the offending side than the result would have been had he revoked only once. Regards Sven From schuster at eduhi.at Fri Nov 16 21:37:00 2007 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:37:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity In-Reply-To: <000401c82888$2de2a2f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c82888$2de2a2f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:37:52 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > A player revokes and I am called to the table just after the revoke has > become established. > > I must now instruct the play to continue; and to comply with my duty as > the > Director I must inform the players how their play will eventually affect > the > result in transferring zero, one or two tricks. > > So far no problem, but please avoid establishing any interpretation of > "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender > to > revoke a second time in the same suit in order to avoid corrections under > Law 64A and instead have both his irregularities jointly corrected under > Law > 64C when this correction for "equity" is more favourable to the offending > side than the result would have been had he revoked only once. > No need to fear that, as you would run foul of L72B2 (1997) or 72B1 (2007). Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 16 22:33:04 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:33:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c82898$459b6110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:37:52 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > A player revokes and I am called to the table just after the revoke has > > become established. > > > > I must now instruct the play to continue; and to comply with my duty as > > the > > Director I must inform the players how their play will eventually affect > > the > > result in transferring zero, one or two tricks. > > > > So far no problem, but please avoid establishing any interpretation of > > "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender > > to > > revoke a second time in the same suit in order to avoid corrections > under > > Law 64A and instead have both his irregularities jointly corrected under > > Law > > 64C when this correction for "equity" is more favourable to the > offending > > side than the result would have been had he revoked only once. > > > No need to fear that, as you would run foul of L72B2 (1997) or 72B1 > (2007). True, but there is something seriously wrong with any law interpretation that rewards added infractions with reduced overall consequences. And I do not want to have to decide whether the second revoke was intentional or accidental for the purpose of deciding the amount of correction. (Deciding on PP is a different matter.) Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 16 23:11:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:11:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711161117w370dc72fq573bc1be6ccacda6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <2b1e598b0711161117w370dc72fq573bc1be6ccacda6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9B4BCC95-0DF5-47A8-89B2-EFAD7B52541F@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I agree with Grattan's offered opinion, but it may be worth noting > that ACBL is not perfectly in agreement. In the ACLB, we announce > transfers (D to H and H to S), at any level, even in competition, and > over natural notrump openings, overcalls, and opener's natural notrump > first rebid. > > See http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html There remains unresolved (at least for me) the question whether an announcement is a form of alert in the ACBL. I believe it is, based on my reading of the alert regulation and the history of announcements here. Others believe it is not. I don't know if the ACBL C&C committee, which is responsible for the alert regulation, has stated its position. Why does it matter? Because the regulation states "Once the auction has progressed to the point that the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call, conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over." If an announcement is a form of alert, announcements in auctions such as 2C-2D-2NT-4D should be delayed. If an announcement is not a form of alert, then there should be no delay. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Nov 17 02:54:58 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:54:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity References: <000501c82898$459b6110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <076301c828bc$dbd289f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> I feel certain that if the lawmakers meant that the second revoke should cancel the penalties incurred by the first one, it would be very clearly stated that this is so. Cheers Stefanie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity >> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:37:52 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >> > A player revokes and I am called to the table just after the revoke has >> > become established. >> > >> > I must now instruct the play to continue; and to comply with my duty as >> > the >> > Director I must inform the players how their play will eventually >> > affect >> > the >> > result in transferring zero, one or two tricks. >> > >> > So far no problem, but please avoid establishing any interpretation of >> > "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender >> > to >> > revoke a second time in the same suit in order to avoid corrections >> under >> > Law 64A and instead have both his irregularities jointly corrected >> > under >> > Law >> > 64C when this correction for "equity" is more favourable to the >> offending >> > side than the result would have been had he revoked only once. >> > >> No need to fear that, as you would run foul of L72B2 (1997) or 72B1 >> (2007). > > True, but there is something seriously wrong with any law interpretation > that rewards added infractions with reduced overall consequences. > > And I do not want to have to decide whether the second revoke was > intentional or accidental for the purpose of deciding the amount of > correction. (Deciding on PP is a different matter.) > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Nov 17 03:05:38 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:05:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <077201c828be$5975aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Grattan Endicott" > Antonio's view is that punishment has no role to play in > determining equity. In other words, that we should consider > the outcome of the hand as though the revoke law was 'there > is no automatic penalty for a revoke, but the Director shall > restore any damage which arises therefrom'. How can it matter what someone's "view" is when it is contrary to the Laws? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 17 03:43:50 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:43:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <077201c828be$5975aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <077201c828be$5975aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <0F6B0D60-24ED-43E6-9EBE-8FC63A687078@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > How can it matter what someone's "view" is when it is contrary to > the Laws? If the laws were completely clear and unambiguous on this, it wouldn't matter. OTOH, if that were the case, this thread would not exist. :-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 17 04:01:28 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:01:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <077201c828be$5975aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <002a01c828c6$58650430$6dca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > >> Antonio's view is that punishment has no role to play in >> determining equity. In other words, that we should consider >> the outcome of the hand as though the revoke law was 'there >> is no automatic penalty for a revoke, but the Director shall >> restore any damage which arises therefrom'. > > How can it matter what someone's "view" is when it is contrary to the Laws? > +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. Meanwhile I can report the opinion of a prominent ACBL Director as follows: "to tell you the truth it would not have occurred to me to do anything other than award slam making (equity being what declarer would have gotten after the first revoke but before the subsequent one) unless I had read the other opinions. Those opinions are interesting, but they do not change my mind. I can't help thinking that the Kaplan reference is being used out of context (although I do not know exactly what he said on the matter). Surely he must have been considering what equity is when the penalty for a single revoke does not sufficiently compensate the non- offending side. I would be surprised if his comments were intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the equity they had established after the first revoke." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 17 06:32:44 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002a01c828c6$58650430$6dca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............. > +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust > in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. > Meanwhile I can report the opinion of a prominent ACBL > Director as follows: "to tell you the truth it would not have > occurred to me to do anything other than award slam making > (equity being what declarer would have gotten after the first > revoke but before the subsequent one) unless I had read the > other opinions. Those opinions are interesting, but they do > not change my mind. I can't help thinking that the Kaplan > reference is being used out of context (although I do not > know exactly what he said on the matter). Surely he must > have been considering what equity is when the penalty for a > single revoke does not sufficiently compensate the non- > offending side. I would be surprised if his comments were > intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second > revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the > equity they had established after the first revoke." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > AMEN Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 17 12:39:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:39:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity In-Reply-To: <000401c82888$2de2a2f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c82888$2de2a2f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <473ED2E1.5010901@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > A player revokes and I am called to the table just after the revoke has > become established. > > I must now instruct the play to continue; and to comply with my duty as the > Director I must inform the players how their play will eventually affect the > result in transferring zero, one or two tricks. > > So far no problem, but please avoid establishing any interpretation of > "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender to > revoke a second time in the same suit in order to avoid corrections under > Law 64A and instead have both his irregularities jointly corrected under Law > 64C when this correction for "equity" is more favourable to the offending > side than the result would have been had he revoked only once. > Yes Sven, but that assumes that the revoke became known. A player who has revoked, and has discovered it (must have happened for the TD to be at the table) is not allowed to revoke again. And if he does, the "could have known" rule enters into force. The cases we are talking about are about revokers who have not discovered their first revoke. Hence they could not have known that to revoke (again) would be to their advantage. Of course this does not work against cheaters who are good actors, but I can live with a set of rules that allow an occasional one of those to slip by undetected. > Regards Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 17 12:40:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:40:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity In-Reply-To: <076301c828bc$dbd289f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000501c82898$459b6110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <076301c828bc$dbd289f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <473ED334.90409@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I feel certain that if the lawmakers meant that the second revoke should > cancel the penalties incurred by the first one, it would be very clearly > stated that this is so. > > Cheers > > Stefanie > They don't. The ruling in Antalya was: four down (table result) + 1 trick (first revoke), corrected to one down (equity before first revoke). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 17 14:33:48 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:33:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > ............. >> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately >> reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust >> in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. >> Meanwhile I can report the opinion of a prominent ACBL >> Director as follows: "to tell you the truth it would not have >> occurred to me to do anything other than award slam making >> (equity being what declarer would have gotten after the first >> revoke but before the subsequent one) unless I had read the >> other opinions. Those opinions are interesting, but they do >> not change my mind. I can't help thinking that the Kaplan >> reference is being used out of context (although I do not >> know exactly what he said on the matter). Surely he must >> have been considering what equity is when the penalty for a >> single revoke does not sufficiently compensate the non- >> offending side. I would be surprised if his comments were >> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second >> revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the >> equity they had established after the first revoke." >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > AMEN > > Sven > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with the sufficient compensation that has already been established for the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam dunk simple law" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 17 15:03:17 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:03:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity References: <000501c82898$459b6110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><076301c828bc$dbd289f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <473ED334.90409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004b01c82923$e769bd80$79d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I feel certain that if the lawmakers meant that the >> second revoke should cancel the penalties incurred >> by the first one, it would be very clearly stated that >> this is so. >> >> Cheers >> >> Stefanie >> > > They don't. > The ruling in Antalya was: four down (table result) + 1 trick (first > revoke), corrected to one down (equity before first revoke). > +=+ Then, 72B1 applied to adjust the score to slam made. However, as far as I am concerned, the initial ruling misinterprets the law (inclusive of the incorporation of the WBF CoP in the regulations) an opinion for which notable support has arrived. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Sat Nov 17 16:17:55 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:17:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> ............. >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately snip . I would be surprised if his comments were >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second >>> revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the >>> equity they had established after the first revoke." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish > the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending > side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke > in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being > subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with > the sufficient compensation that has already been established for > the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe > that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders > are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear > provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam > dunk simple law" Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a German ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and realised revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till I'd isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I discussed it with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I actually asked Max at the time too when I got back to London since I thought the 2005 Kojak was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I thought correct then and now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I misunderstand Kojak then, or has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 opinion above is much cleaner as he applies 64A to the first and 64C to the subsequent. Nice one. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat Nov 17 16:20:16 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:20:16 EST Subject: [blml] What is equity Message-ID: In a message dated 17/11/2007 11:38:39 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: >The cases we are talking about are about revokers who have not >discovered their first revoke. Hence they could not have known that to >revoke (again) would be to their advantage. Whether they did know about the first revoke is regarded as irrelevant by many, including several that post on the International Bridge Laws Forum. The fact that they "could have known" (by the simple method of looking at their hand) is the factor, so that intent needs not be established. In the contentious case on the IBLF, declarer, in a small slam with one outside loser, led the queen from QJTxx opposite Axxxx and the next player dropped two small cards from Kxx. Declarer now correctly rose and went off. Thje majority opinion was to adjust to restore equity, and they were of the opinion that "could have known" can be applied even to a lapsus manus. >Of course this does not work against cheaters who are good actors, but >I can live with a set of rules that allow an occasional one of those >to slip by undetected. By applying the "could have known" clause literally you will avoid the need to make an accusation of cheating in the following case: A player has S xxxx H JT9x D xxx C Ax and hears an auction, with the opponents vulnerable, (1H) - 4S - (5H). He makes the insufficient bid of 4S. His LHO condones this and bids RKCB and the good slam is reached, but he doubles it and it fails on the 4-0 trump break. I would rule here that the player could have known that making an insufficient bid to give the opponents more room could work to his advantage, as otherwise they may guess to pass, and, as the 4NT bid is not a wild and gambling action, the "double shot" rule does not apply, so I adjust to 5H =. Paul "I wish I could have known earlier that you have all the time you'll need right up to the day you die." - William Wiley From schoderb at msn.com Sat Nov 17 17:12:58 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:12:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: With his advantage of being of many less years than I and therefore superior recall, I hesitate to disagree with John Probst about what I once said, but I'll have the pleasure of clarifying our agreement in less than two weeks in Wiesbaden again. I don't believe we need to go anywhere else than Law 64 (like 72B1) to do the "right thing" in this scenario. Nefarious intent, "could have known", etc., all are fine and good, but when a player continues to revoke in the same suit it is usually because of not seeing a card of that suit in his/her hand. Maybe we get called at the end, we find out when the first revoke occurred, we make the necessary rectification, and we look to see that nothing further occurred by the non-rectifiable revoke(s) - applying 64C - to change our adjustment on the rectifiable revoke. (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that can't read it?) Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > >> ............. > >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > > snip > > . I would be surprised if his comments were > >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second > >>> revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the > >>> equity they had established after the first revoke." > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish > > the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending > > side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke > > in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being > > subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with > > the sufficient compensation that has already been established for > > the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe > > that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that > > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders > > are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear > > provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam > > dunk simple law" > > Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a > German ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and > realised revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold > up till I'd isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so > I owned up immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I > discussed it with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I > actually asked Max at the time too when I got back to London since I > thought the 2005 Kojak was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I > thought correct then and now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I > misunderstand Kojak then, or has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 > opinion above is much cleaner as he applies 64A to the first and 64C to > the subsequent. Nice one. John > > > ~ 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 swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 17 22:46:58 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:46:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] HTML Message-ID: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> > (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that > can't read it?) Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. From geller at nifty.com Sat Nov 17 23:25:13 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:25:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] HTML In-Reply-To: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200711172225.AA11446@geller204.nifty.com> HTML mails can be used to conceal malicious code to take over the recipient's machine (without the knowledge of the sender, if his machine is infected. For this reason as well it's best to avoid HTML in mail and stick to plain text. -Bob Steve Willner ????????: >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that >> can't read it?) > >Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Sat Nov 17 23:25:13 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:25:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] HTML In-Reply-To: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200711172225.AA11446@geller204.nifty.com> HTML mails can be used to conceal malicious code to take over the recipient's machine (without the knowledge of the sender, if his machine is infected. For this reason as well it's best to avoid HTML in mail and stick to plain text. -Bob Steve Willner ????????: >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that >> can't read it?) > >Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From schoderb at msn.com Sat Nov 17 23:41:05 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:41:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] HTML References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> <200711172225.AA11446@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the information. I am now "educated" on this subject. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HTML > HTML mails can be used to conceal malicious code to take over the > recipient's machine (without the knowledge of the sender, if his machine > is infected. For this reason as well it's best to avoid HTML in mail > and stick to plain text. > > -Bob > > Steve Willner ????????: > >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use > >> that > >> can't read it?) > > > >Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml at amsterdamned.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sat Nov 17 23:41:05 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:41:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] HTML References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> <200711172225.AA11446@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the information. I am now "educated" on this subject. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] HTML > HTML mails can be used to conceal malicious code to take over the > recipient's machine (without the knowledge of the sender, if his machine > is infected. For this reason as well it's best to avoid HTML in mail > and stick to plain text. > > -Bob > > Steve Willner ????????: > >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use > >> that > >> can't read it?) > > > >Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml at amsterdamned.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 18 01:28:18 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:28:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001001c82979$f572c420$e0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >> +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill >> Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: >> "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish >> the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending >> side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke >> in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being >> subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with >> the sufficient compensation that has already been established for >> the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe >> that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that >> had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't >> "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders >> are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? >> 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear >> provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam >> dunk simple law" > > Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a > German ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and > realised revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold > up till I'd isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so > I owned up immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I > discussed it with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. < +=+ John, That was Wiesbaden. The CoP would not be part of the regulations there. In EBL events the WBF CoP is specified to form part of the regulations. The definition of 'damage' in the CoP therefore applies and the Director is bound by it. The equity is the expectation as to the outcome in the instant before the infraction - in this case the second infraction. In Wiesbaden Kojak would get to that position as ACBL directors do, direct from Law 64C itself. In the EBL event, with the chief director overlooking the effect of the regulation and applying the outdated Kaplan concept, Max would need 72B1 to get there. In the 2007 Laws the two approaches are melded with the CoP position embodied in the laws themselves. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 18 01:32:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:32:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] HTML References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002101c8297a$8034c4f0$e0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:46 PM Subject: [blml] HTML >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that >> can't read it?) > > Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > +=+ Mine handlesit. But I always convert HTML to plain text when received because of the mailignant possibilities of HTML. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 18 01:32:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:32:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] HTML References: <473F6152.3090807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002101c8297a$8034c4f0$e0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:46 PM Subject: [blml] HTML >> (and now I get to go back to HTML - are there still programs in use that >> can't read it?) > > Quite a few mailers cannot handle HTML. Please stick to plain text. > +=+ Mine handlesit. But I always convert HTML to plain text when received because of the mailignant possibilities of HTML. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Nov 18 11:10:55 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:10:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: As in the real world we all have our opinion and rarely the experts agree. But to be fair to history (and Herman) the approach in the EBL for this kind of problems for at least 15 years now is to ignore all penalties and to establish the result on the number of tricks had the first nor second revoke occurred. Grattan has been around when we made such decisions in EBL_TD courses. I remember a lecture given by Claude Dadoun in the early nineties in such course in Amsterdam advocating this approach and we had similar cases in later courses. I have to confess that this is not a clear cut situation, we need some kind of interpretation to solve this problem. So my suggestion is not to pretend that arguments are completely clear and can lead to only one conclusion. Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past (see above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws committee agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of John Probst Sent: zaterdag 17 november 2007 16:18 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> ............. >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately snip . I would be surprised if his comments were >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second revoke >>> occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the equity they had >>> established after the first revoke." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish the > rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending side is > sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke in the same suit > by the same player, this revoke not being subject to rectification. > What in hell does this have to do with the sufficient compensation > that has already been established for the first revoke? Is it even > possible that someone would believe that a second revoke would reduce > the number of tricks that > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders are > entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear provision of > what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam dunk simple law" Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a German ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and realised revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till I'd isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I discussed it with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I actually asked Max at the time too when I got back to London since I thought the 2005 Kojak was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I thought correct then and now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I misunderstand Kojak then, or has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 opinion above is much cleaner as he applies 64A to the first and 64C to the subsequent. Nice one. John > ~ 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Nov 18 11:16:00 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:16:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002a01c828c6$58650430$6dca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: How can it matter what someone's "view" is when it is contrary to the Laws? > +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. ...... +=+ I do not know who wrote that Antonio's (and mine, and the EBL) approach is contrary to the laws. If that is the case I admit that we need to change our view. Could this expert clarify his statement? ton From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 18 13:08:25 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:08:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <473F761000317FB8@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <007901c829db$d0084a40$b6d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > As in the real world we all have our opinion and rarely the experts agree. > But to be fair to history (and Herman) the approach in the EBL for this > kind > of problems for at least 15 years now is to ignore all penalties and to > establish the result on the number of tricks had the first nor second > revoke > occurred. Grattan has been around when we made such decisions in EBL_TD > courses. I remember a lecture given by Claude Dadoun in the early nineties > in such course in Amsterdam advocating this approach and we had similar > cases in later courses. > I have to confess that this is not a clear cut situation, we need some > kind > of interpretation > to solve this problem. So my suggestion is not to pretend that arguments > are > completely clear and can lead to only one conclusion. > > Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, > meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past > (see > above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws > committee > agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. > > ton > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Nov 18 13:59:47 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:59:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <007901c829db$d0084a40$b6d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sent: zondag 18 november 2007 13:08 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Grattan Endicott Message-ID: I find it hard to accept that the EBL has been cancelling the equity arrived at by Law 64A because the offender made a second revoke in the same suit. But of even more importance, to me, is that the WBF has hopefully not been doing that without my knowledge for the last 15 years. I also find that Ton sometimes gets the EBL and the WBF confused -- for instance, having made his statements about the EBL below he then proposes that the subject needs to be further investigated by the WBF LC. -- if it's an EBL interpretation problem, would not the EBL LC be the place to clarify it? Nor do I find that "in the real world we have our opinion and rarely the experts agree"" at all. I believe that the information distributed in EBL TD courses pertains to the EBL. Solve the problem where it apparently exists. It is clear to me from the postings that the WBF does not allow an interpretation of the law in which the offending side gains from a faulty understanding of the English and the intent of the laws. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > As in the real world we all have our opinion and rarely the experts agree. > But to be fair to history (and Herman) the approach in the EBL for this > kind > of problems for at least 15 years now is to ignore all penalties and to > establish the result on the number of tricks had the first nor second > revoke > occurred. Grattan has been around when we made such decisions in EBL_TD > courses. I remember a lecture given by Claude Dadoun in the early nineties > in such course in Amsterdam advocating this approach and we had similar > cases in later courses. > I have to confess that this is not a clear cut situation, we need some > kind > of interpretation > to solve this problem. So my suggestion is not to pretend that arguments > are > completely clear and can lead to only one conclusion. > > Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, > meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past > (see > above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws > committee > agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. > > ton > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John Probst > Sent: zaterdag 17 november 2007 16:18 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > >> ............. > >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > > snip > > . I would be surprised if his comments were > >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second revoke > >>> occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the equity they had > >>> established after the first revoke." > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish the > > rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending side is > > sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke in the same suit > > by the same player, this revoke not being subject to rectification. > > What in hell does this have to do with the sufficient compensation > > that has already been established for the first revoke? Is it even > > possible that someone would believe that a second revoke would reduce > > the number of tricks that > > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders are > > entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear provision of > > what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam dunk simple law" > > Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a > German > ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and realised > revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till > I'd > isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up > immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I discussed > it > with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I actually > asked > Max at the time too when I got back to London since I thought the 2005 > Kojak > was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I thought correct then and > now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I misunderstand Kojak then, or > has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 opinion above is much cleaner as > he > > applies 64A to the first and 64C to the subsequent. Nice one. John > > > ~ 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 18 16:00:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Clarification In-Reply-To: <20071118101105.WHTJ13734.aamtain01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20071118101105.WHTJ13734.aamtain01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <47405390.7080804@ntlworld.com> [ton] Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past (see above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws committee agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. [nige1] Surely the WBFLC have time to include this clarification, in place, in the 2007 edition of the laws. In the past few weeks, BLMLers have high-lighted other obscure areas. Please may we all help in a last minute trawl for other such disambiguations. For the sake of players, it is better to simplify and clarify the English in the law-book now -- than to produce yet another mountain of obscure and befuddled minutes later. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 18 16:28:21 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:28:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Change-list appendix Message-ID: <47405A15.9040402@ntlworld.com> Richard James Hills produced an excellent summary of the changes in the new edition of the law-book. Few directors and fewer players will have time to trawl through the latest version in its entirety, so perhaps (after vetting by WBFLC) Richard's notes should be appended to the new edition as an informal elucidation. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Nov 18 16:45:42 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:45:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com><000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> Message-ID: <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> "Grattan Endicott" writes: > +=+ It does seem to me that announcements are a good > thing when the announced meaning is clearly something > that the partners will not get wrong. Opening bids and > responses thereto, for example. I am less sure of them > in competitive situations. I offer opinion that experiment > initially could be confined to meanings of the first type. > After experience consider further developments. This is correct in theory but not necessarily in practice. The theoretical advantage of announcements is that they avoid routine alerts, and thus save time and avoid UI when the opponents must regularly ask, and allow the alert to call attention to the unusual call. In particular, if you play forcing Stayman, 1NT-2D is alerted, not announced, and the opponents are more likely to check the CC or ask, because a Jacoby transfer would be announced. The problem in practice is that announcements are misused. 1NT-2S is often announced as "Transfer" or even "Transfer to clubs", and many players who announce it don't actually use it as a transfer to clubs, but as a sign-off in either minor. Once the auction goes 1NT-2S-3C-3D, you know you have been misinformed, but it is too late to bid 3C over 2S, and unlikely (although legally possible) that the TD will be called if the player wanted to double 3C for the lead against a likely diamond contract. And if the auction goes (1NT)-(2S)-3H, you may not know about the MI until you play the hand and find that opener has five clubs and responder three. Players also use announcements on unclear auctions, generalizing the principles; this may create a UI problem. (1H)-P-(P)-1NT is sometimes announced as "11-14" (there is a space for this sequence on the ACBL CC but many players haven't agreed on it). If the announcement replaces an alert, there is not normally a UI problem; 1NT-(2C)-2H when bid with hearts causes the same UI whether 2H is alerted or announced as "Transfer". From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sun Nov 18 16:56:14 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:56:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Change-list appendix References: <47405A15.9040402@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00b701c829fb$8db35750$1dd6e45a@home4paplwv76s> Where can I find this summary? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 4:28 PM Subject: [blml] Change-list appendix > Richard James Hills produced an excellent summary of the changes in > the new edition of the law-book. > > Few directors and fewer players will have time to trawl through the > latest version in its entirety, so perhaps (after vetting by WBFLC) > Richard's notes should be appended to the new edition as an informal > elucidation. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 18 18:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <473B7E36.3070409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for > strategy [A] below ... > [A] *Sometimes* ask. > [B] *Always* ask now. > [C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction. You could try asking most of the time you don't know. The only UI pard gets is from an ask is that one doesn't know but the need to ask is reduced by a brief prior study of the opposing CC. Tim From john at asimere.com Sun Nov 18 20:08:59 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:08:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: Message-ID: <001e01c82a16$7e39bf60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] So let us consider serial infractions... At Wiesbaden 2005, an ACBL regional at the end of November in a deserted airport hanger once populated by B52's near a small town of that name in Germany and TD'd by some damned yankee called Kojak is held, I revoked. An entryless dummy was running its long suit. It struck me that it would be to my benefit to revoke twice more, (though in fact I called the TD at the point where I became aware of the infraction when partner had played to the subsequent trick). This is the mise en scene. Let's not argue about how this comes about but: I revoke the first time. One trick penalty. Contract down 1 gains one 64A trick I revoke the second time. Contract now makes on a squeeze but gains the 64A revoke trick unless I revoke the third time (and will now win a trick in the suit). Contract down 2 and please to rule this one. I am a Probst cheat. I believe the answer is obvious. The result is contract plus one based on 64A applied to the 1st revoke; 64C applied to the second revoke and to the third also. The equity after the first revoke is just made; after the 2nd is plus one and after the third is? cheers John. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > Sent: zondag 18 november 2007 13:08 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************** > "Small talk dies in agonies." > ~ Shelley > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''' > +=+ Ton records accurately the situation in the EBL as it was > up to 1999. It is based upon some early Kaplan edicts. In 1999, with the > issue of the WBF Code of Practice, we changed matters. > I do not doubt that the EBL itself altered its position when it then > incorporated the CoP in its regulations, although it appears not everyone > has recognized this. The CoP applies, too, in the WBF. > We have extended in this respect the effect of the Code of Practice by our > wording of 2007 Law 12B1, for application universally. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ............................................................................ > .................. > > > It could be true that Grattan was also thinking about this case when > reading > L12B1 but he needs interpretation of that law to support his opinion. The > interpretation being that in the sentence, result based on 'expectation > had > the infraction not occurred...' the infraction meant is the second revoke > and not the first. > > That is not at all obvious, though defendable. > > ton > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Nov 18 20:13:15 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:13:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred><001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> <001001c82979$f572c420$e0ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002701c82a17$15a88840$0701a8c0@john> snip >> >> Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a >> German ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and >> realised revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold >> up till I'd isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however >> so >> I owned up immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session >> I >> discussed it with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. > < > +=+ John, > That was Wiesbaden. The CoP would not be part of the > regulations there. In EBL events the WBF CoP is specified to > form part of the regulations. The definition of 'damage' in the CoP > therefore applies and the Director is bound by it. The equity is > the expectation as to the outcome in the instant before the > infraction - in this case the second infraction. > In Wiesbaden Kojak would get to that position as ACBL > directors do, direct from Law 64C itself. In the EBL event, > with the chief director overlooking the effect of the regulation > and applying the outdated Kaplan concept, Max would need > 72B1 to get there. In the 2007 Laws the two approaches are > melded with the CoP position embodied in the laws themselves. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Thanks Grattan, clear and effective coomunication :) our discussion was ACBL oriented intitially and we then went on (as Td's do, Matthias Scueller, EBL TD being present)) to discuss "Hoiw do we play bridge?" and WBF considerations as well. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 18 20:37:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:37:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Change-list appendix In-Reply-To: <47405A15.9040402@ntlworld.com> References: <47405A15.9040402@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Few directors and fewer players will have time We all have the same amount of time, Nigel, so long as we're alive. There's a difference between "don't have the time" and "don't think it's a high enough priority to give it time". From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 18 22:30:40 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:30:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Change-list appendix In-Reply-To: References: <47405A15.9040402@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4740AF00.7090504@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Few directors and fewer players will have time [Ed Reppert] We all have the same amount of time, Nigel, so long as we're alive. There's a difference between "don't have the time" and "don't think it's a high enough priority to give it time". [nige1] It's a common idiom. Sorry Ed, if you haven't met it before :( Obviously we both have lots of time :) From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Nov 18 23:37:41 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:37:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] HTML Message-ID: <4740BEB5.7060409@aol.com> What is HTML? JE From geller at nifty.com Mon Nov 19 00:10:39 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:10:39 +0900 Subject: [blml] HTML In-Reply-To: <4740BEB5.7060409@aol.com> References: <4740BEB5.7060409@aol.com> Message-ID: <200711182310.AA11449@geller204.nifty.com> Jeff Easterson writes: >What is HTML? JE HyperText Markup Language - Wikipedia May I suggest you try google first? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 01:21:57 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:21:57 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is Liable Message-ID: <2a1c3a560711181621j76a93de9ua278ad4abaa71d3a@mail.gmail.com> "LAW 43 - DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS Except as specified in Law 42: A. Limitations on Dummy 1. General Limitations (a) Calling the Director Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. (b) Calling Attention to Irregularity Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. (c) Participate in or Comment on Play Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. 2. Limitations Carrying Specific Penalty (a) Exchanging Hands Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer. (b) Leave Seat to Watch Declarer Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer's play of the hand. (c) Look at Defender's Hand Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand. B. Penalties for Violation 1. General Penalties Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 or A2 preceding. " L43B1 says that dummy "...is liable...". In my mind this means that the penalty should be automatically assessed. If this was not the intention then better wording for L43B1 would be "...may be liable...". The problem is that L90 allows the director discretion: "LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess 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." The director "...may..." penalize. However L43 says that dummy is liable to penalty not merely liable to the TDs discretion. That latter liability is there without the reference in L43. Therefore I think the stronger interpretation of L43 is justified. Is there any dispute on this? Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 19 01:47:15 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:47:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Liable In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560711181621j76a93de9ua278ad4abaa71d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560711181621j76a93de9ua278ad4abaa71d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <87E6F92B-1278-456B-8643-007C76382494@rochester.rr.com> To me, after checking Merriam-Webster's definition of "liable", the wording of the law suggests that whether to penalize in this case is at the TD's discretion. Since that corresponds with my previous understanding that a penalty is not *required*, I'm inclined to stick with it. :-) From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 08:27:43 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:27:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is Liable In-Reply-To: <87E6F92B-1278-456B-8643-007C76382494@rochester.rr.com> References: <2a1c3a560711181621j76a93de9ua278ad4abaa71d3a@mail.gmail.com> <87E6F92B-1278-456B-8643-007C76382494@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560711182327j3398d248o847aa3c230b5c521@mail.gmail.com> On 19/11/2007, Ed Reppert wrote: > To me, after checking Merriam-Webster's definition of "liable", the > wording of the law suggests that whether to penalize in this case is > at the TD's discretion. Since that corresponds with my previous > understanding that a penalty is not *required*, I'm inclined to stick > with it. :-) I am intrigued. What did your dictionary say? That interpretation while maybe common practice makes L43B1 redundant since the director would have the discretion to penalize even without L43B1. When the goverment say that I am liable for penalty tax they don't mean there is any discretion. Additionally some of the language in L43A is very strong - "may not"; and "must not". Failure to comply with this sort of language seems to require penalties more often than not (my interpretation of 'may not' - the interpretation is only is explicit on positive directives but it seems to follow from the text in the 'Interpretation of the Laws'). It seems that common practice is out of step with the seriousness of the language in L43. Wayne From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 19 09:34:16 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Strange reaction by Kojak. We do not reach equity in L64A, we penalize (sorry, we use the word rectify nowadays) the revoking side, less severe than before, but still. The fact that the EBL has given an opinion in this situation is because it has courses, discussions etc. I am not aware of any opinion about this issue released by the WBF, unless we refer to Kaplan when he was the chairman of the WBF laws committee. He seemed to support the EBL position. So, in my opinion I am not confusing anything. As I stated before the WBF CofP is not clear about this situation, it is wishful interpretation that leads to the conclusions given by Grattan. So I uphold my opinion that it might be a good idea to have the WBF LC giving an answer. ton ((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))) Kojak: I find it hard to accept that the EBL has been cancelling the equity arrived at by Law 64A because the offender made a second revoke in the same suit. But of even more importance, to me, is that the WBF has hopefully not been doing that without my knowledge for the last 15 years. I also find that Ton sometimes gets the EBL and the WBF confused -- for instance, having made his statements about the EBL below he then proposes that the subject needs to be further investigated by the WBF LC. -- if it's an EBL interpretation problem, would not the EBL LC be the place to clarify it? Nor do I find that "in the real world we have our opinion and rarely the experts agree"" at all. I believe that the information distributed in EBL TD courses pertains to the EBL. Solve the problem where it apparently exists. It is clear to me from the postings that the WBF does not allow an interpretation of the law in which the offending side gains from a faulty understanding of the English and the intent of the laws. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > As in the real world we all have our opinion and rarely the experts agree. > But to be fair to history (and Herman) the approach in the EBL for this > kind > of problems for at least 15 years now is to ignore all penalties and to > establish the result on the number of tricks had the first nor second > revoke > occurred. Grattan has been around when we made such decisions in EBL_TD > courses. I remember a lecture given by Claude Dadoun in the early nineties > in such course in Amsterdam advocating this approach and we had similar > cases in later courses. > I have to confess that this is not a clear cut situation, we need some > kind > of interpretation > to solve this problem. So my suggestion is not to pretend that arguments > are > completely clear and can lead to only one conclusion. > > Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, > meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past > (see > above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws > committee > agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. > > ton > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John Probst > Sent: zaterdag 17 november 2007 16:18 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > >> ............. > >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > > snip > > . I would be surprised if his comments were > >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second revoke > >>> occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the equity they had > >>> established after the first revoke." > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish the > > rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending side is > > sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke in the same suit > > by the same player, this revoke not being subject to rectification. > > What in hell does this have to do with the sufficient compensation > > that has already been established for the first revoke? Is it even > > possible that someone would believe that a second revoke would reduce > > the number of tricks that > > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders are > > entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear provision of > > what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam dunk simple law" > > Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a > German > ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and realised > revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till > I'd > isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up > immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I discussed > it > with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I actually > asked > Max at the time too when I got back to London since I thought the 2005 > Kojak > was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I thought correct then and > now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I misunderstand Kojak then, or > has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 opinion above is much cleaner as > he > > applies 64A to the first and 64C to the subsequent. Nice one. John > > > ~ 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 19 10:15:17 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:15:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002701c82a17$15a88840$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: Grattan writes: > The definition of 'damage' in the CoP therefore > applies and the Director is bound by it. The equity is the > expectation as to the outcome in the instant before the infraction - > in this case the second infraction. Where do we find evidence for this assumption: 'in this case the second revoke'? ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 19 10:33:16 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:33:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com><000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> Message-ID: <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > "Grattan Endicott" writes: > > > The theoretical advantage of announcements is that they avoid routine alerts, and thus save time > and avoid UI when the opponents must regularly ask, and allow the alert to call > attention to the unusual call. In particular, if you play forcing Stayman, > 1NT-2D is alerted, not announced, and the opponents are more likely to check the > CC or ask, because a Jacoby transfer would be announced. > AG : this is theoretical indeed. We had to remember what was alertable in several contexts (like different countries, screens or not, short or long matches, possibly club regulations) and now, to make good use of the announcement regulations, we'll have to remember what was "announ?able" (?). Leave well enough alone. I'll stick with my idea that one should ask whenever needed and the UI from showing interest is often negligible. One possible way to minimize UI would be to allow "random questions" like there is random timing behind screens, but I'm afraid it would also help crooks. > this may create a UI problem. (1H)-P-(P)-1NT is sometimes announced as "11-14" > (there is a space for this sequence on the ACBL CC but many players haven't > agreed on it). If the announcement replaces an alert, there is not normally a > UI problem; 1NT-(2C)-2H when bid with hearts causes the same UI whether 2H is > alerted or announced as "Transfer". > > > AG : not quite. When alerted, it might mean many things, including natural (what about natural F1, with 2D as generic signoff ? what about the guy who alerted, because he was told he'd alert nonforcing new suits ? what about "often 4 cards" ?) , and perhaps they don't want to know, won't ask, and no MI will ensue. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 19 11:02:51 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:02:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <4740C78F002B7456@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <001701c82a93$5c8b47d0$65d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > Strange reaction by Kojak. We do not reach equity in L64A, we penalize > (sorry, we use the word rectify nowadays) the revoking side, less severe > than before, but still. > > The fact that the EBL has given an opinion in this situation is because it > has courses, discussions etc. I am not aware of any opinion about this > issue > released by the WBF, unless we refer to Kaplan when he was the chairman of > the WBF laws committee. He seemed to support the EBL position. > > So, in my opinion I am not confusing anything. As I stated before the WBF > CofP is not clear about this situation, it is wishful interpretation that > leads to the conclusions given by Grattan. > So I uphold my opinion that it might be a good idea to have the WBF LC > giving an answer. > > ton > > ((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))) > > Kojak: > I find it hard to accept that the EBL has been cancelling the equity > arrived > at by Law 64A because the offender made a second revoke in the same suit. > But of even more importance, to me, is that the WBF has hopefully not been > doing that without my knowledge for the last 15 years. I also find that > Ton > sometimes gets the EBL and the WBF confused -- for instance, having made > his > statements about the EBL below he then proposes that the subject needs to > be > further investigated by the WBF LC. -- if it's an EBL interpretation > problem, would not the EBL LC be the place to clarify it? > > Nor do I find that "in the real world we have our opinion and rarely the > experts agree"" at all. I believe that the information distributed in EBL > TD courses pertains to the EBL. Solve the problem where it apparently > exists. It is clear to me from the postings that the WBF does not allow > an > interpretation of the law in which the offending side gains from a faulty > understanding of the English and the intent of the laws. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > >> As in the real world we all have our opinion and rarely the experts >> agree. >> But to be fair to history (and Herman) the approach in the EBL for this >> kind >> of problems for at least 15 years now is to ignore all penalties and to >> establish the result on the number of tricks had the first nor second >> revoke >> occurred. Grattan has been around when we made such decisions in EBL_TD >> courses. I remember a lecture given by Claude Dadoun in the early >> nineties >> in such course in Amsterdam advocating this approach and we had similar >> cases in later courses. >> I have to confess that this is not a clear cut situation, we need some >> kind >> of interpretation >> to solve this problem. So my suggestion is not to pretend that arguments >> are >> completely clear and can lead to only one conclusion. >> >> Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, >> meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past >> (see >> above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws >> committee >> agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> Sent: zaterdag 17 november 2007 16:18 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >> >> > >> >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> >> ............. >> >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately >> >> snip >> >> . I would be surprised if his comments were >> >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second revoke >> >>> occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the equity they had >> >>> established after the first revoke." >> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill >> > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: >> > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish the >> > rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending side is >> > sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke in the same suit >> > by the same player, this revoke not being subject to rectification. >> > What in hell does this have to do with the sufficient compensation >> > that has already been established for the first revoke? Is it even >> > possible that someone would believe that a second revoke would reduce >> > the number of tricks that >> > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't >> > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders are >> > entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? >> > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear provision of >> > what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam dunk simple law" >> >> Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a >> German >> ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and >> realised >> revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till >> I'd >> isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up >> immediately and the ruling was trivial. But after the session I discussed >> it >> with Kojak and I didn't think he was going down this route. I actually >> asked >> Max at the time too when I got back to London since I thought the 2005 >> Kojak >> was weong, and Max applied 72B1, which is what I thought correct then and >> now. (The Probst cheat must not gain). Did I misunderstand Kojak then, >> or >> has he changed his opinion? Kojak's 2007 opinion above is much cleaner as >> he >> >> applies 64A to the first and 64C to the subsequent. Nice one. John >> >> > ~ 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 19 11:06:01 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:06:01 EST Subject: [blml] Is Liable Message-ID: In a message dated 19/11/2007 07:28:10 GMT Standard Time, wjburrows at gmail.com writes: >> To me, after checking Merriam-Webster's definition of "liable", the >> wording of the law suggests that whether to penalize in this case is >> at the TD's discretion. Since that corresponds with my previous >> understanding that a penalty is not *required*, I'm inclined to stick >> with it. :-) >I am intrigued. What did your dictionary say? >That interpretation while maybe common practice makes L43B1 redundant >since the director would have the discretion to penalize even without >L43B1. >When the goverment say that I am liable for penalty tax they don't >mean there is any discretion. And they don't mean there isn't any discretion either. That is a non sequitur; about as much of one as saying "when the government says (sic) that I am liable for penalty tax they don't mean that I am an accountant." Actually, in England, all tax penalties can be appealed to the General Commissioners, and the majority of tax penalties are also discretionary. Some think a task of the TD, and later if appropriate the AC, is to decide whether there should be discretion in order to get a common sense application of the law. Paul ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 19 11:16:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:16:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4741627B.3000807@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************** > "Small talk dies in agonies." > ~ Shelley > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:32 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > >>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> ............. >>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately >>> reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust >>> in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. >>> Meanwhile I can report the opinion of a prominent ACBL >>> Director as follows: "to tell you the truth it would not have >>> occurred to me to do anything other than award slam making >>> (equity being what declarer would have gotten after the first >>> revoke but before the subsequent one) unless I had read the >>> other opinions. Those opinions are interesting, but they do >>> not change my mind. I can't help thinking that the Kaplan >>> reference is being used out of context (although I do not >>> know exactly what he said on the matter). Surely he must >>> have been considering what equity is when the penalty for a >>> single revoke does not sufficiently compensate the non- >>> offending side. I would be surprised if his comments were >>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second >>> revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the >>> equity they had established after the first revoke." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> AMEN >> >> Sven >> > +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill > Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: > "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish > the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending > side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke > in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being > subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with > the sufficient compensation that has already been established for > the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe > that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that > had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't > "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders > are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? > 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear > provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam > dunk simple law" Kojak, with all due respect, it is so "slam dunk simple", that I cannot even read between your lines what your answer is. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 19 11:21:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> References: <000001c828db$47e2bd90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <004901c82923$e5430cf0$79d3403e@Mildred> <001c01c8292d$07483920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <474163BE.7060809@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >>> ............. >>>> +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > > snip > > . I would be surprised if his comments were >>>> intended to apply to this kind of situation where a second >>>> revoke occurs, thus depriving the non-offending side of the >>>> equity they had established after the first revoke." >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> +=+ I have one other response received privately, from Bill >> Schoder, WBF CTD Emeritus; this is an extract from it: >> "When a player revokes, the law is applied and we establish >> the rectification by Law 64 A making sure that the non-offending >> side is sufficiently compensated Now we have a second revoke >> in the same suit by the same player, this revoke not being >> subject to rectification. What in hell does this have to do with >> the sufficient compensation that has already been established for >> the first revoke? Is it even possible that someone would believe >> that a second revoke would reduce the number of tricks that >> had been assigned, by Law, for the first revoke? Doesn't >> "C" give you the tools to make it clear that the non-offenders >> are entitled to NO LESS than what has already been decided? >> 64C clearly treats revokes independently, gives clear >> provision of what to do and is, to my simplistic brain, a slam >> dunk simple law" > > Curious. I had a chat about this scenario with Kojak at Wiesbaden (a German > ACBL regional he directs) 2 years ago. I actually had revoked and realised > revoking a 2nd time _could_ gain in the sense that I could hold up till I'd > isolated dummy's suit. Probst is not a Probst cheat however so I owned up > immediately and the ruling was trivial. I doubt if there are many Probst cheats out there, and if there are, and they are good actors, and they get away with it, so be it. If there are Probst cheats out there who are less than perfect actors, and they get found out, then the "could have known, etc" comes into force, and the slam should be recorded made. But John should realize that he was in a different situation than the one we are (presumably) talking about. That is a situation in which the revoker does not realize he has revoked. I see no problem in ruling equity based on the situation before the first revoke. I do say however, that I am merely pointing out the merits of both solutions. I have a small preference, but I would prefer joining either camp if "the world" decides that this is the way we ought to handle it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 19 11:57:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:57:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <001e01c82a16$7e39bf60$0701a8c0@john> References: <001e01c82a16$7e39bf60$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <47416C26.80100@skynet.be> Please remember what I wrote before. I am not advocating either position, but I wish to make clear that either position is tenable under law. John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > So let us consider serial infractions... At Wiesbaden 2005, an ACBL regional > at the end of November in a deserted airport hanger once populated by B52's > near a small town of that name in Germany and TD'd by some damned yankee > called Kojak is held, I revoked. An entryless dummy was running its long > suit. It struck me that it would be to my benefit to revoke twice more, > (though in fact I called the TD at the point where I became aware of the > infraction when partner had played to the subsequent trick). > > This is the mise en scene. Let's not argue about how this comes about but: > > I revoke the first time. One trick penalty. Contract down 1 gains one 64A > trick NO. The contract will be played out. Afterwards, one trick will be added to the final result. THEN, the total will be compared to equity, and the equity result will be given. Since the contract goes two down (after the 3 revokes), one trick penalty gives back the equitable result. Still one down. > I revoke the second time. Contract now makes on a squeeze but gains the 64A > revoke trick unless not important. > I revoke the third time (and will now win a trick in the suit). Contract > down 2 > > and please to rule this one. > The second and third revokes do not get penalised, there is one penalty trick, so that brings us to down one. That is equity for the contract, so we do not need to adjust according to L64C. THIS is where the crux of the matter lies. Does L64C refer to equity before the revokes together, or to equity before the second and third revoke? I am not certain of the answer to that one. Which is why the problem is there. John then adds a piece of information not present in the original case: > I am a Probst cheat. Whether John is a cheat or not does not really matter of course. It would be possible for a cheat to have revoked (twice even) without realizing it. As long as John does not realize that he has revoked, there is no reason to change anything to the ruling above. This is the first possibility 1) John does not realize he has revoked. The ruling is "one down" (Ton's interpretation) or "contract made" (Max's interpretation) If we assume that John realizes he has revoked (let's say after the second revoke), there are three more possibilities: 2) John is John. He calls the director, does not revoke a third time, the contract goes one down and the penalty trick is applied. Contract made. 3) John is a Probst cheat but not a good actor. He revokes a third time. The Director finds out about it. He can rule "could have known". Contract made. 4) John is a Probst cheat and a good actor. He revokes a third time, the director does not find out about it. The director rules as in case 1). > I believe the answer is obvious. The result is contract plus one based on > 64A applied to the 1st revoke; 64C applied to the second revoke and to the > third also. The equity after the first revoke is just made; after the 2nd is > plus one and after the third is? > John's obvious answer is only true in case 3). Case 2) is not what has happened. I do not believe we need to have Max's interpretation just because case 4) might exist and we cannot distinguish it from case 1). That's just too bad, but no system is perfect. To base a set of rules on the fact that some people might cheat is not the way forward, I believe. I continue to believe that both answers are possible and the WBFLC ought to make a decision. However, let's analyse this under the 2007 laws first. > cheers John. > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> Sent: zondag 18 november 2007 13:08 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ******************************** >> "Small talk dies in agonies." >> ~ Shelley >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> '''''''' >> +=+ Ton records accurately the situation in the EBL as it was >> up to 1999. It is based upon some early Kaplan edicts. In 1999, with the >> issue of the WBF Code of Practice, we changed matters. >> I do not doubt that the EBL itself altered its position when it then >> incorporated the CoP in its regulations, although it appears not everyone >> has recognized this. The CoP applies, too, in the WBF. >> We have extended in this respect the effect of the Code of Practice by our >> wording of 2007 Law 12B1, for application universally. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> ............................................................................ >> .................. >> >> >> It could be true that Grattan was also thinking about this case when >> reading >> L12B1 but he needs interpretation of that law to support his opinion. The >> interpretation being that in the sentence, result based on 'expectation >> had >> the infraction not occurred...' the infraction meant is the second revoke >> and not the first. >> >> That is not at all obvious, though defendable. >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 19 15:16:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:16:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002a01c828c6$58650430$6dca403e@Mildred> References: <001101c82874$0cc518a0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <077201c828be$5975aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002a01c828c6$58650430$6dca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C4D00C-8E6C-4970-B42D-BD3BC1C005F4@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:01 PM, wrote: > +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust > in that way. His status earns attention to his opinions. Wouldn't we all be better off if "earning attention" for one's opinions from TPTB had less to do with one's "status" and more to do with the quality and thoughtfulness of those opinions? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 19 16:56:58 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:56:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification In-Reply-To: <47405390.7080804@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: hello, As Grattan has stated before we (WBF)have not planned to have an update or changes in the new laws in the near future. Of course when things appear to be completely wrong we need to do something. And we are planning to come with examples illustrating what we want/think the laws to mean. And you (blml)are quite welcome to suggest such examples. Did I miss already important issues? ton [ton] Which leads me to the proposal to try to be as consistent as possible, meaning that we do (at least in the EBL) what we have done in the past (see above). And of course I am willing to put this issue on a WBF laws committee agenda in case someone finds convincing reasons to change that policy. [nige1] Surely the WBFLC have time to include this clarification, in place, in the 2007 edition of the laws. In the past few weeks, BLMLers have high-lighted other obscure areas. Please may we all help in a last minute trawl for other such disambiguations. For the sake of players, it is better to simplify and clarify the English in the law-book now -- than to produce yet another mountain of obscure and befuddled minutes later. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 19 17:01:35 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:01:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <49C4D00C-8E6C-4970-B42D-BD3BC1C005F4@starpower.net> Message-ID: We all hope that there is a positive correlation between somebodies status and the quality of his opinions. I know that we (you, they) do not always succeed to reach that relation. In case of Antonio I do not hesitate to confirm that it exists. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: maandag 19 november 2007 15:16 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:01 PM, wrote: > +=+ Well, to be fair to Antonio, his view - if accurately > reported - is that it is in conformity with the Laws to adjust in that > way. His status earns attention to his opinions. Wouldn't we all be better off if "earning attention" for one's opinions from TPTB had less to do with one's "status" and more to do with the quality and thoughtfulness of those opinions? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 19 18:28:44 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:28:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is Liable In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560711182327j3398d248o847aa3c230b5c521@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560711181621j76a93de9ua278ad4abaa71d3a@mail.gmail.com> <87E6F92B-1278-456B-8643-007C76382494@rochester.rr.com> <2a1c3a560711182327j3398d248o847aa3c230b5c521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 19, 2007, at 2:27 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I am intrigued. What did your dictionary say? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liable > That interpretation while maybe common practice makes L43B1 redundant > since the director would have the discretion to penalize even without > L43B1. > > When the goverment say that I am liable for penalty tax they don't > mean there is any discretion. > > Additionally some of the language in L43A is very strong - "may not"; > and "must not". Failure to comply with this sort of language seems to > require penalties more often than not (my interpretation of 'may not' > - the interpretation is only is explicit on positive directives but it > seems to follow from the text in the 'Interpretation of the Laws'). Hm. I had not looked at the language in the rest of the law, only at "liable". While I agree with your interpretation of "may not" and "must not", I think that, particularly at club level, the requirements implicit in the wording of the laws as to the decision to impose a "real" PP are often ignored in favor of other considerations. The most likely IME being some form of "I don't want to annoy or drive away paying customers by penalizing them." Which of course ignores the possibility of annoying or driving away the NOS paying customers by *not* penalizing the OS. But I digress. :-) There is also the situation regarding Law 9B1: "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." I pointed out in this forum several years ago that the use of "must" in this law implies that a PP should be issued "more often than not" when the TD is not so summoned. Grattan wrote that he didn't think that was intended, and submitted the question to the WBFLC, who, iirc, referred it to the Drafting Subcommittee. In the 2007 Laws, "must" has been replaced with "should". That example does not imply, of course, that the Law 43 situation is the same - but it might be. > It seems that common practice is out of step with the seriousness > of the language in L43. It does, doesn't it? :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 19 20:14:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <474163BE.7060809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But John should realize that he was in a different situation than > the one we are (presumably) talking about. That is a situation in > which the revoker does not realize he has revoked. I see no problem > in ruling equity based on the situation before the first revoke. And I see no reason to *care* what the defender might have known. As each bid is made/card is played the equity (likely final outcome to each side) is subject to change. Infractions are no different in that respect - each one can affect the equity. When deciding what to award NOS on a hand with 3 revokes we identify what the result (including transferred tricks) would have been immediately prior to each separate infraction and use L64c to restore equity to the most favourable of those if the transfer of tricks at the end of the hand fails to compensate to that level. Tim From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 23:02:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:02:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> It sounds to me like everyone here is assuming that asking the meaning of an alert risks passing on UI, and not asking is totally risk free. This is wrong thinking. If you play somewhere where you can only ask when you "need to know" (as they say), it is plainly obvious that not asking passes on UI. In some situations, not asking passes on more UI than asking does. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 20 02:03:17 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:03:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19F53729-109B-412D-9C5B-A6C07411B8CD@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > If you play somewhere where you can only ask > when you "need to know" (as they say), it is plainly obvious that not > asking passes on UI. I infer that your use of "need to know" here in quotes has some meaning other than that conveyed by the words themselves. Not sure what meaning that might be. IAC, the only information I can see contained in a failure to ask a question when you are not permitted to ask unless you need to know is that the player thinks he knows what the call in question means. That is certainly "extraneous" in the sense the laws use that word, and may quite possibly be construed as "unauthorized" as well, but I don't see how that information is useful to its recipient - unless you're suggesting that he must now act as if his partner *doesn't* know what's going on. I'm not sure what that might be called, but I don't think "bridge" fits. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 20 02:43:23 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:43:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] AI or UI Message-ID: <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the FLB (1997 version). East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) From adam at irvine.com Tue Nov 20 02:47:53 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:47:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:43:23 EST." <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200711200144.RAA27488@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the > FLB (1997 version). > > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? In the 1997 Laws, I think this is pretty clearly UI, by Law 16C2, since the HK is a withdrawn play. I don't see any reason why 16C2 wouldn't apply---is there one? But West is still allowed to play partner for the HK if it's the only way to beat the contract, e.g. I haven't finished reading the new Laws, so I can't answer that part. -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 20 03:21:07 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:21:07 EST Subject: [blml] AI or UI Message-ID: In a message dated 20/11/2007 01:48:28 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? This reminds me of a somewhat different one, where my partner led a club out of turn. The declarer, having been read his options, chose that I led a club, but I was void. I therefore led another suit, and the director seemed uncertain whether the fact that I had a club void was now UI to my partner, as that information was not gleaned from the "withdrawn action" but was gleaned from the failure to comply with the penalty, but I think that it was "arising" from the "withdrawn action" so is UI. Those more familiar with this than I will no doubt regard this as trivial. At the table, my partner did not return a club when he gained the lead, as he thought that he could not have otherwise been sure it was the right defence, which he thought was the ethical way to behave. Paul From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 20 04:02:49 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:02:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gampas at aol.com writes: > This reminds me of a somewhat different one, where my partner led a club out > of turn. The declarer, having been read his options, chose that I led a > club, but I was void. I therefore led another suit, and the director seemed > uncertain whether the fact that I had a club void was now UI to my partner, > as > that information was not gleaned from the "withdrawn action" but was gleaned > from the failure to comply with the penalty, but I think that it was > "arising" > from the "withdrawn action" so is UI. I would say that the club void is AI, because it arises from other actions which are AI. The fact that you were penalized, and the penalty, are AI. You complied with the penalty by showing out of clubs. The same principle applies with many other penalties. If partner drops the HQ on the table and must lead it as a penalty card, it is AI to you that the HQ play was forced, and thus you need not assume that he has the HJ, nor that he believes that a heart was the best lead. (However, if he had led the HQ out of turn, the fact that he wanted to lead a heart arose from his withdrawn action, and that is UI to you.) Your specific case was an explicit example in the 1975 Law book, but it was gone in the 1987 book. The example was the distinction between direct and indirect damage. Direct damage: East has Jxx of clubs, and North has AKQxxx and no side entries. East revokes on the third club trick and wins the fourth. Declarer goes down three but would have made his contract without the revoke. The penalty for the revoke should be three tricks, not the usual two. Indirect damage: East commits an irregularity during the auction, allowing South to require or forbid a diamond lead. South requires a diamond lead. West has no diamonds and leads something else, and East later gives West a diamond ruff which would not have been a normal play otherwise. The damage was not a direct consequence of the infraction, and the score should be allowed to stand. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 20 05:13:42 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:13:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47425EF6.5010001@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] It sounds to me like everyone here is assuming that asking the meaning of an alert risks passing on UI, and not asking is totally risk free. This is wrong thinking. If you play somewhere where you can only ask when you "need to know" (as they say), it is plainly obvious that not asking passes on UI. In some situations, not asking passes on more UI than asking does. [nige1] Everyone? EBU players will all confirm that what Jerry says is true. For example, I maintain that you must *always or never* ask to avoid suspicion of conveying unauthorised information. It has been suggested that you ask only about agreeements omitted from the system card or that you ask "randomly". IMO, however, that is hard to do and almost impossible to police. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 20 11:28:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> But John should realize that he was in a different situation than >> the one we are (presumably) talking about. That is a situation in >> which the revoker does not realize he has revoked. I see no problem >> in ruling equity based on the situation before the first revoke. > > And I see no reason to *care* what the defender might have known. > You might not care - but you would be wrong in ruling "could have known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does not know that he has revoked a first time. The case that John is talking about is about a cheat, and that case can easily be solved by the "could have known" route. What the majority of us are talking of is the case of an innocent revoker, one who does not know that he has revoked a first time. For this case, we cannot use the "could have known", but only the "equiity" ruling. In fact then, Tim, what you are saying when you say you don't care, is that you believe the equity referred to in L64C is the equity after the first revoke. That point of view has been stated quite clearly already, and I don't see anything new in your views below: > As each bid is made/card is played the equity (likely final outcome to > each side) is subject to change. Infractions are no different in that > respect - each one can affect the equity. When deciding what to award > NOS on a hand with 3 revokes we identify what the result (including > transferred tricks) would have been immediately prior to each separate > infraction and use L64c to restore equity to the most favourable of those > if the transfer of tricks at the end of the hand fails to compensate to > that level. > This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 20 15:08:32 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:08:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] AI or UI References: <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM Subject: [blml] AI or UI > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the > FLB (1997 version). > > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? > > 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? > > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) > +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further options? Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 20 15:08:32 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:08:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] AI or UI References: <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM Subject: [blml] AI or UI > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the > FLB (1997 version). > > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? > > 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? > > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) > +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further options? Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 20 15:23:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:23:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce or alert? In-Reply-To: <19F53729-109B-412D-9C5B-A6C07411B8CD@rochester.rr.com> References: <200711152141.AA11433@geller204.nifty.com> <000a01c827d6$acd82470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001001c82874$0b0bf6f0$7ac8403e@Hellen> <01125F867A994FFEA9EE6BABCD8B0DD9@erdos> <4741585C.8090200@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0711191402k3df09821ma0be78bdd910c26c@mail.gmail.com> <19F53729-109B-412D-9C5B-A6C07411B8CD@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <57CAE0F2-E58F-4EB0-AFA1-8A8D214C3D6D@starpower.net> On Nov 19, 2007, at 8:03 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> If you play somewhere where you can only ask >> when you "need to know" (as they say), it is plainly obvious that not >> asking passes on UI. > > I infer that your use of "need to know" here in quotes has some > meaning other than that conveyed by the words themselves. Not sure > what meaning that might be. > > IAC, the only information I can see contained in a failure to ask a > question when you are not permitted to ask unless you need to know is > that the player thinks he knows what the call in question means. That > is certainly "extraneous" in the sense the laws use that word, and > may quite possibly be construed as "unauthorized" as well, but I > don't see how that information is useful to its recipient - unless > you're suggesting that he must now act as if his partner *doesn't* > know what's going on. I'm not sure what that might be called, but I > don't think "bridge" fits. It has been mentioned in this forum that there are -- or, at least, used to be; they may have come to their senses -- some jurisdictions in which it is considered improper to ask about an opponent's call unless the answer might affect one's own subsequent action. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 20 15:43:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:43:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c82b83$bff3b870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM > Subject: [blml] AI or UI > > > > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the > > FLB (1997 version). > > > > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. > > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > > > > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? > > > > 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? > > > > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so > > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) > > > +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play > a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further > options? > Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? 2007 Law 50D2a? Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Nov 20 17:04:27 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:04:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> References: <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4743058B.8090508@meteo.fr> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************** > "Don't throw away the old bucket until > you know whether the new one holds > water." - Swedish saying. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM > Subject: [blml] AI or UI > > >> This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading the >> FLB (1997 version). >> >> East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >> The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. >> The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. >> >> 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? >> >> 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? >> >> (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so >> the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) >> > +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play > a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further > options? > Am I missing something here? who knows? > I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? and L50D2a? didn't L54D suggest a walk in this area? jpr > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- _______________________________________________ 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 20 18:52:22 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:52:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Clarification In-Reply-To: <20071119155709.UNZR7824.aamtain05-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20071119155709.UNZR7824.aamtain05-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <47431ED6.6090006@ntlworld.com> [ton] As Grattan has stated before we (WBF)have not planned to have an update or changes in the new laws in the near future. Of course when things appear to be completely wrong we need to do something. And we are planning to come with examples illustrating what we want/think the laws to mean. And you (blml)are quite welcome to suggest such examples. Did I miss already important issues? [nige1] There seem to be places in TNLB where the language could be tightened, simplified and clarified. Those who highlighted some of those ambiguities, in BLML and elsewhere, probably regard them as important. I'm disappointed that ton regards the appendix as a suitable vehicle for dealing with such *english ambiguities*. I feel that they should be corrected in the body of the text - preferably by replacing the original text with simpler clearer text. Now. I hope that the appendix will instead help with *judgement* issues because the result of a competition may hang on a fine subjective judgement. A principle aim of the new laws is to increase the importance of so-called "equity", and the frequency of "weighted scores". This means more power and responsibility for directors; and more subjective assessments; more inconsistent rulings are inevitable. (This is a welcome change for BLMLers but its hard to believe that the ordinary players consulted by WBFLC really wanted this. I suppose its too late now). Anyway, examples of *borderline cases* -- where a shift in subjective assessment might change a critical decision -- are what I would like to see in the Appendix. If directors all sang from such a hymn-book, there might be fewer discrepancies in judgement. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 20 23:02:01 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:02:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> >This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which "rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer plays the ace and drops the king. Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the "equitable" result, which is...what? According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award. Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 20 23:36:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:36:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] AI or UI References: <000901c82b83$bff3b870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <003301c82bc5$ef082820$bbc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] AI or UI >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> From: "Steve Willner" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM >> Subject: [blml] AI or UI >> >> >> > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading >> > the >> > FLB (1997 version). >> > >> > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >> > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart >> > lead. >> > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. >> > >> > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? >> > >> > 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? >> > >> > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, >> > so >> > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) >> > >> +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play >> a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further >> options? >> Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? > > 2007 Law 50D2a? > > Regards Sven > +=+ Ah! I'm awake now. 50D2(a) specifies that "the card is no longer a penalty card". So defender may indeed play the Q. However, I do not believe it is right to say the question is simply whether the card is 'withdrawn' for the purposes of Law 16C2 (2007: 16D2). True, the King was played and has now been returned to the hand so that I do not see how it can be anything but 'retracted'. However, more to the point, in my view, is whether the information to which 50E2 refers continues to be information that was obtained 'from sight of ' the penalty card. I do not see a statement that Law 50E2 has ceased to apply to that information. If we study 50E2 do we not find that the statement it makes is open-ended ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 21 01:09:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <003301c82bc5$ef082820$bbc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c82bd2$c4b51f30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > From: "Sven Pran" > >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > >> From: "Steve Willner" > >> To: > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM > >> Subject: [blml] AI or UI > >> > >> > >> > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading > >> > the FLB (1997 version). > >> > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. > >> > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart > >> > lead. > >> > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the > >> > Q. > >> > > >> > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? > >> > > >> > 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? > >> > > >> > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, > >> > so > >> > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) > >> > > >> +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to > play > >> a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further > >> options? > >> Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52? > > > > 2007 Law 50D2a? > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ Ah! I'm awake now. 50D2(a) specifies that "the card is no longer a > penalty card". So defender may indeed play the Q. However, I do not > believe it is right to say the question is simply whether the card is > 'withdrawn' for the purposes of Law 16C2 (2007: 16D2). True, the > King was played and has now been returned to the hand so that I do not > see how it can be anything but 'retracted'. However, more to the point, in > my view, is whether the information to which 50E2 refers continues to be > information that was obtained 'from sight of ' the penalty card. > I do not see a statement that Law 50E2 has ceased to apply to that > information. If we study 50E2 do we not find that the statement it makes > is open-ended ? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Indeed! And what is authorized in Law 50E1 is just "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card". So this law ceases to be applicable at the moment a penalty card ceases to be a penalty card. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 21 07:34:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:34:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4743D167.3000300@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > > This reminds me of a somewhat different one, where my partner led a club out > of turn. The declarer, having been read his options, chose that I led a > club, but I was void. I therefore led another suit, and the director seemed > uncertain whether the fact that I had a club void was now UI to my partner, as > that information was not gleaned from the "withdrawn action" but was gleaned > from the failure to comply with the penalty, but I think that it was "arising" > from the "withdrawn action" so is UI. Those more familiar with this than I > will no doubt regard this as trivial. It was a question a friend of mine had at his exam, and the expected answer was : "sheer luck : apply last sentence of L72B5". The exemple given by the teacher was the case of a player dropping an Ace during the play, thereby being compelled to execute the Emperor's coup. NB : just for the fun, a dialogue heard yesterday : West at table 2, strong voice : "I swear I didn't hear you call a heart" South at table 3 : "Twould be fine if I didn't hear anything either" Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 21 07:52:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <4743058B.8090508@meteo.fr> References: <47423BBB.40401@nhcc.net> <002d01c82b7e$dd6e5bd0$d0d6403e@Mildred> <4743058B.8090508@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4743D5A7.305@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > >>> East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >>> The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. >>> The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. >>> >>> 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West? >>> >>> 2. Does it change under the new Laws? If so, why? >>> >>> (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table, so >>> the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.) >>> >>> >> +=+ H-K is 'picked up'. ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play >> a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further >> options? >> Am I missing something here? >> I'd say he is. When declarer has exerted his option to force or disallow the lead in ths suit of a MPC, the card is picked up AND ceases to be a MPC, whence failure to lead a MPC doesn't apply anymore. Best regards Alain From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Sun Nov 18 23:17:07 2007 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] chnges in 2007 laws Message-ID: <000001c82a30$c1e6e2f0$45b4a8d0$@hallen@bolina.hsb.se> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071118/94b440f7/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 09:20:52 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:20:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> Message-ID: On 20/11/2007, David Burn wrote: > >This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. > It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. > > Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in > dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has > another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East > plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which > "rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer > plays the ace and drops the king. > > Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that > earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of > those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after > declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the > "equitable" result, which is...what? > > According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been > played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down > one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable > result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty > card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award. > > Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman > (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the > second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the > first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being > a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? I know very well that when applying law 64C to make an equity ruling after further revoke(s) in the same suit at an intitial revoke, the equity before the first revoke has been what these rulings have been based upon in Norway and EBL for years and years. I'm not sure when I learned to rule like this first, but it was normal practice to me before attending a EBL TD course in Amesterdam 1992 referred to by others in this thread before. I, for one, find this approach very strange. I strongly agree with Max, David and others saying that the equity should be based on the situation AFTER the first revoke, that is, the expected result after transferring the number of tricks the law say for the actual first revoke. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Nov 21 09:54:30 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification In-Reply-To: <47431ED6.6090006@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: ton: See the reaction from Nigel below: I am afraid that we will disappoint you. There will not be many judgment cases in the appendix. We have zillions of judgment cases available and every new one seems to be really 'new' and creates uncertainty about the outcome. Some clear cases could be added, but nobody is waiting for those. [ton] As Grattan has stated before we (WBF)have not planned to have an update or changes in the new laws in the near future. Of course when things appear to be completely wrong we need to do something. And we are planning to come with examples illustrating what we want/think the laws to mean. And you (blml)are quite welcome to suggest such examples. Did I miss already important issues? [nige1] There seem to be places in TNLB where the language could be tightened, simplified and clarified. Those who highlighted some of those ambiguities, in BLML and elsewhere, probably regard them as important. I'm disappointed that ton regards the appendix as a suitable vehicle for dealing with such *english ambiguities*. I feel that they should be corrected in the body of the text - preferably by replacing the original text with simpler clearer text. Now. I hope that the appendix will instead help with *judgement* issues because the result of a competition may hang on a fine subjective judgement. A principle aim of the new laws is to increase the importance of so-called "equity", and the frequency of "weighted scores". This means more power and responsibility for directors; and more subjective assessments; more inconsistent rulings are inevitable. (This is a welcome change for BLMLers but its hard to believe that the ordinary players consulted by WBFLC really wanted this. I suppose its too late now). Anyway, examples of *borderline cases* -- where a shift in subjective assessment might change a critical decision -- are what I would like to see in the Appendix. If directors all sang from such a hymn-book, there might be fewer discrepancies in judgement. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 10:11:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:11:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> Message-ID: <4743F626.4090600@skynet.be> I wish to repeat that I have not yet made a definite decision on this matter, so it is wrong to class me with Ton on this one. However, whenever someone tries to "prove" that their view is the correct one, I shall try to disprove their allegation. David Burn wrote: >> This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. > It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. > > Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in > dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has > another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East > plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which > "rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer > plays the ace and drops the king. > > Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that > earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of > those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after > declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the > "equitable" result, which is...what? > > According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been > played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down > one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable > result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty > card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award. > > Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman > (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the > second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the > first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being > a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? > Because their is a special distinction between the two cases: in the first one, the two irregularities are different, in the second one, the two irregularities are revokes by the same player in the same suit, a case which is explicitely handled in the lawbook as saying that this second "irregularity" carries no penalty. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 21 10:33:29 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:33:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4743F626.4090600@skynet.be> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> <4743F626.4090600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c82c21$93ab0220$bb010660$@com> [HdW] Because there is a special distinction between the two cases: in the first one, the two irregularities are different, in the second one, the two irregularities are revokes by the same player in the same suit, a case which is explicitely handled in the lawbook as saying that this second "irregularity" carries no penalty. [DALB] Oh, the second irregularity carries no penalty (or "carries no rectification", as we must now learn to say - the substitution of the word "rectification" for the word "penalty" throughout the new law book has caused a number of absurdities that should be addressed, if it is not too late). But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in either the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the penalty provisions of the first. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 21 10:56:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:56:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4743F626.4090600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c82c24$d7ca66f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > > Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with > Herman > > (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the > > second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between > the > > first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity > being > > a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? > > > > Because their is a special distinction between the two cases: in the > first one, the two irregularities are different, in the second one, > the two irregularities are revokes by the same player in the same > suit, a case which is explicitely handled in the lawbook as saying > that this second "irregularity" carries no penalty. ..... but law 64C applies. And no part of Law 64 says anything to the effect that a rectification for an already committed revoke (or any other rectification for that sake) shall be nullified as part of establishing "equity". Much of this discussion has arose from a case where there were two revokes, one by each side, in the same trick; so interlinked that they could not be rectified individually. Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Nov 21 10:59:36 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:59:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> Message-ID: hi, I have been reluctant to be in any camp during all my live, though I have been a boy scout long ago. May be that is the reason: we had camps early in the spring before CO2 ruined the world. The comment from David lacks accuracy in several aspects, which is not normal for David and suggests that he is too desperately looking for arguments to support his view. The only thing I have said about this issue up till now is that the EBL top TD's up till now and for many years have supported the idea that in revoke cases L64c should be read to restore equity had the revoke or revokes not occurred. I am not willing to throw this approach overboard in a wimp because I want consistency in the application of the laws. It needs more than even David or Kojak or both to change on November the 21th well known decisions/interpretations. And the example is not in any way convincing. The equity approach applies for the revokes only, we are not waving the consequences of rectifications for other infractions. Is that what Max told you? You didn't spoil it yet, I feel some sympathy for your ideas. Did anyone notice that we have introduced a new case where revokes are not liable to rectifications (I mean penalties)? When both sides revoke on the same board. With the agreed approach this might be solvable. What if we adopt your much better idea? Nice you are back, and I mean it. ton ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: dinsdag 20 november 2007 23:02 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which "rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer plays the ace and drops the king. Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the "equitable" result, which is...what? According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award. Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Nov 21 11:08:21 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:08:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> References: <4742B6E7.80803 04@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> Message-ID: <47440395.1030103@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : >> This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton. > It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position. > > Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in > dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has > another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East > plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which > "rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer > plays the ace and drops the king. > > Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that > earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of > those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after > declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the > "equitable" result, which is...what? > > According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been > played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down > one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable > result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty > card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award. > > Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman > (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the > second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the > first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being > a revoke? if you allow me to answer your question without giving my agreement to anybody, the difference i see is that in the 2nd case, both irregularities are intimately connected, up to the point that they are dealt with only one correcting action and that some readers go as far as considering them as only one irregularity: persistently failing to follow suit. > If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? agreed: 2 irregularities don't become 1 because of the kind of redress they induce. jpr > > David Burn > London, England > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 13:13:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:13:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> Message-ID: <474420CF.4050806@skynet.be> Not to be wanting to appear to be splitting hairs, Harald makes a small mistake : Harald Skj?ran wrote: > I, for one, find this approach very strange. I strongly agree with > Max, David and others saying that the equity should be based on the > situation AFTER the first revoke, that is, the expected result after > transferring the number of tricks the law say for the actual first > revoke. > That should of course be : BEFORE the second revoke. There might be some bad play in between the two revokes that changes the equity between the two moments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 13:15:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:15:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000701c82c21$93ab0220$bb010660$@com> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> <4743F626.4090600@skynet.be> <000701c82c21$93ab0220$bb010660$@com> Message-ID: <4744214F.2010709@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Because there is a special distinction between the two cases: in the > first one, the two irregularities are different, in the second one, > the two irregularities are revokes by the same player in the same > suit, a case which is explicitely handled in the lawbook as saying > that this second "irregularity" carries no penalty. > > [DALB] > > Oh, the second irregularity carries no penalty (or "carries no > rectification", as we must now learn to say - the substitution of the word > "rectification" for the word "penalty" throughout the new law book has > caused a number of absurdities that should be addressed, if it is not too > late). > > But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in either > the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the penalty > provisions of the first. But they are not cancelled! Declarer will receive: -the number of tricks really gathered (say 3 down) -one penalty trick for that first revoke (making 2 down) -64C towards the first equity (so 1 down) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 13:16:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:16:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000701c82c24$d7ca66f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c82c24$d7ca66f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <474421B2.7030300@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................ >>> Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with >> Herman >>> (and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the >>> second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between >> the >>> first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity >> being >>> a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not? >>> >> Because their is a special distinction between the two cases: in the >> first one, the two irregularities are different, in the second one, >> the two irregularities are revokes by the same player in the same >> suit, a case which is explicitely handled in the lawbook as saying >> that this second "irregularity" carries no penalty. > > ..... but law 64C applies. > of course it does. > And no part of Law 64 says anything to the effect that a rectification for > an already committed revoke (or any other rectification for that sake) shall > be nullified as part of establishing "equity". > But no part of L64C clearly tells us which of the 2 "equities" is intended. Face it, guys, you cannot prove or disprove either of the two views on the subject. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 21 14:20:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:20:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4744214F.2010709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > David Burn wrote: .............. > > But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in > either > > the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the > penalty > > provisions of the first. > > But they are not cancelled! > Declarer will receive: > -the number of tricks really gathered (say 3 down) > -one penalty trick for that first revoke (making 2 down) > -64C towards the first equity (so 1 down) HUH? The matter under discussion is (as far as I have noticed) the situation when the rectification (Law 64A) of a revoke results in a score more favourable for the non-offending side than could be expected ("equity") had the revoke not occurred, and a second revoke in the same suit is then committed by the same player in a later trick. This second revoke shall be dealt with under law 64C and the question is simply whether "equity" now is the expected score immediately before the first or immediately before the second revoke. Those who feel that "equity" is before the first revoke effectively argue that the rectification for the first revoke shall be cancelled (or "nullified" as I wrote), a view that I (for one) cannot share. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 15:07:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> David Burn wrote: > .............. >>> But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in >> either >>> the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the >> penalty >>> provisions of the first. >> But they are not cancelled! >> Declarer will receive: >> -the number of tricks really gathered (say 3 down) >> -one penalty trick for that first revoke (making 2 down) >> -64C towards the first equity (so 1 down) > > HUH? > > The matter under discussion is (as far as I have noticed) the situation when > the rectification (Law 64A) of a revoke results in a score more favourable > for the non-offending side than could be expected ("equity") had the revoke > not occurred, and a second revoke in the same suit is then committed by the > same player in a later trick. > > This second revoke shall be dealt with under law 64C and the question is > simply whether "equity" now is the expected score immediately before the > first or immediately before the second revoke. > > Those who feel that "equity" is before the first revoke effectively argue > that the rectification for the first revoke shall be cancelled (or > "nullified" as I wrote), a view that I (for one) cannot share. > No Sven, of course not. And it becomes even more clear when we use the new word "rectification" rather than penalty. The first revoke is rectified, since declarer received the number of tricks he was due before the first revoke. The penalty trick cannot be seen as a "rectification", and even when we called it a "penalty" under the 1997 laws, there was nothing in the laws that guaranteed such a "penalty". The only absolute guarantee in the laws was L64C, and that has been satisfied. As to the question of whether the "penalty" on the first revoke should be "guaranteed", I believe this is simply the same question as the one we've been looking at. Does the "equity" in L64C - when looking at the second revoke - refer to the equity before the first or the second revoke. I understand that you "feel" that the penalty from the first revoke ought not to be cancelled byt the second one, but there are some people that "feel" that the 2 revokes are just one infraction, and that they should be treated exactly the same way as a single revoke that cuts communications and gains 3 tricks: those tricks are cancelled, and equity is restored, but no additional windfall is to be gained by the non-revokers. Come to think of it, and looking at it from that angle - I am getting more and more drawn to the merits of the "Ton" camp. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 21 15:26:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:26:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <474420CF.4050806@skynet.be> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> <474420CF.4050806@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2007, at 7:13 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Not to be wanting to appear to be splitting hairs, Harald makes a > small mistake : > > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> I, for one, find this approach very strange. I strongly agree with >> Max, David and others saying that the equity should be based on the >> situation AFTER the first revoke, that is, the expected result after >> transferring the number of tricks the law say for the actual first >> revoke. >> > That should of course be : BEFORE the second revoke. > There might be some bad play in between the two revokes that changes > the equity between the two moments. When there is only a single revoke, we determine equity at the point of the revoke, not at the start of the hand, for exactly that reason: there may be some bad play between the start of the hand and the revoke. It therefore seems counterintuitive to suggest that the law would intend to exclude a previous revoke from the scope of "some bad play". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 21 16:33:25 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:33:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47444FC5.8020001@ntlworld.com> [nige1] In the past, such arguments proceeded until boredom supervened. A few were addressed in arcane minutes that usually generated even more controversy among an inner circle of cognoscenti. Some waited 10 years for the next edition of the law book. Most are left unresolved. In this case, common sense dictates that defenders should *not* benefit from a second infraction (i.e. The ruling must be 6S= or 6S+1 + PP/DP if appropriate) Any other ruling (6S-1 or 6S-4) is bizarre and unjust. [A] If the law really *intends* the latter, then it should be clarified, in place, forthwith. Cynics would agree that it accords well with the WBFLC concept of "Equity" :) [B] If, as I hope, the latter is a wrong *interpretation*, the law should still be clarified to prevent others falling into the trap. Some BLMLers are grateful to law-makers for cultivating so many controversies :) but ordinary players can't understand why the WBFLC won't nip them in the bud by completing and clarifying the laws in place :( This would entail much work, simplifying and clarifying English. Perhaps even simplifying some laws (Please pardon me for that blasphemy). Gradually, over time, however, the WBFLC's efforts would then spiral inwards -- asymptotically approaching a clean complete clear consistent unambiguous set of laws. A frustrating future for BLML :( but an unlikely imminent prospect with the current WBF :) From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 21 16:33:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:33:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c82c53$ea455860$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > The first revoke is rectified, since declarer received the number of > tricks he was due before the first revoke. > > The penalty trick cannot be seen as a "rectification", and even when > we called it a "penalty" under the 1997 laws, there was nothing in the > laws that guaranteed such a "penalty". The only absolute guarantee in > the laws was L64C, and that has been satisfied. Please be more careful when reading law text: Quote LAW 64 - PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE A. Rectification following a Revoke When a revoke is established: 1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player*, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side. 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. B. No Rectification There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: .........(snip) C. Director Responsible for Equity When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. Unquote The first revoke is "rectified" by transferring one trick from offending side to non-offending side. The fact that this rectification leads to a result better than "equity" for the non-offending side is irrelevant. It is still a rectification and not a penalty. "Penalty" in the current laws has never been intended as punishment but as (standard) compensation to non-offending side for infractions of laws. This has been further clarified by renaming the old term "penalty" to the new term "rectification", a renaming that implies no change in reality. The 2007 Laws distinguish between "rectification" which corresponds to (most?) previous "penalty" situations and "penalty" which is either "procedural penalty" or "disciplinary penalty", both of which are indeed penalties. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 21 17:55:22 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:55:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000201c82c53$ea455860$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c82c53$ea455860$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <474462FA.8040704@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> The first revoke is rectified, since declarer received the number of >> tricks he was due before the first revoke. >> >> The penalty trick cannot be seen as a "rectification", and even when >> we called it a "penalty" under the 1997 laws, there was nothing in the >> laws that guaranteed such a "penalty". The only absolute guarantee in >> the laws was L64C, and that has been satisfied. > > Please be more careful when reading law text: > > Quote > LAW 64 - PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE > A. Rectification following a Revoke > When a revoke is established: > 1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending > player*, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is > transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent > tricks won by the offending side. > 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending > player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after > play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side. > B. No Rectification > There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > .........(snip) > C. Director Responsible for Equity > When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to > rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall > assign an adjusted score. > Unquote > > The first revoke is "rectified" by transferring one trick from offending > side to non-offending side. The fact that this rectification leads to a > result better than "equity" for the non-offending side is irrelevant. It is > still a rectification and not a penalty. > > "Penalty" in the current laws has never been intended as punishment but as > (standard) compensation to non-offending side for infractions of laws. This > has been further clarified by renaming the old term "penalty" to the new > term "rectification", a renaming that implies no change in reality. > > The 2007 Laws distinguish between "rectification" which corresponds to > (most?) previous "penalty" situations and "penalty" which is either > "procedural penalty" or "disciplinary penalty", both of which are indeed > penalties. > > Sven > Yes Sven, so? The new text, just as the old, speaks of transferring a trick at the end of play, and then checking for equity. That is still being done, even after the second revoke. So the "rectification" for the first revoke has not gone away. I would think that this is even clearer with the word rectification than with the word penalty. Indeed, when after the whole action the non-revoking side end up with the same number of tricks they would have gotten without any revoke, it is easier for the TD to say "you got rectification, did you not?" than to say "they were penalised, were they not?". > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 21 17:57:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:57:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47444FC5.8020001@ntlworld.com> References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47444FC5.8020001@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47446380.9010805@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > > In this case, common sense dictates that defenders should *not* > benefit from a second infraction (i.e. The ruling must be 6S= or 6S+1 > + PP/DP if appropriate) Any other ruling (6S-1 or 6S-4) is bizarre and > unjust. > Since the Laws consider that to revoke twice in the same suit does not constitute a second offence, there is no common sense that makes us conclude the above. Yes, common sense dictates that if a player realizes he has made a revoke, he is not allowed to revoke a second time in order to lessen his penalty, but that is not what we are talking about. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Wed Nov 21 15:46:51 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:46:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: Sorta looks like Herman is still testing the direction of the wind, to see which way will give him the best personal position. Rectification includes penalties where so shown. Mistakes in the play of the game can and do produce inequitable results. The revoke law has penalties in its application and the windfall for the non-offenders is part of the game when they get an otherwise inequitable score. To think that a further infraction can now cancel this position is silly. Law 64C says nothing about establishing "equity" for the table, event, well played hand, etc., it specifies "for the non-offending" side which gets an adjustment if insufficiently compensate by all of Law 64. The non-offending side was sufficiently compensated by the application of the penalty inherent in Law 64A. Now we are going remove this compensation because there is a further infraction by the offending side? And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at boggles my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of the 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it doesn't exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> David Burn wrote: > > .............. > >>> But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in > >> either > >>> the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the > >> penalty > >>> provisions of the first. > >> But they are not cancelled! > >> Declarer will receive: > >> -the number of tricks really gathered (say 3 down) > >> -one penalty trick for that first revoke (making 2 down) > >> -64C towards the first equity (so 1 down) > > > > HUH? > > > > The matter under discussion is (as far as I have noticed) the situation > > when > > the rectification (Law 64A) of a revoke results in a score more > > favourable > > for the non-offending side than could be expected ("equity") had the > > revoke > > not occurred, and a second revoke in the same suit is then committed by > > the > > same player in a later trick. > > > > This second revoke shall be dealt with under law 64C and the question is > > simply whether "equity" now is the expected score immediately before the > > first or immediately before the second revoke. > > > > Those who feel that "equity" is before the first revoke effectively > > argue > > that the rectification for the first revoke shall be cancelled (or > > "nullified" as I wrote), a view that I (for one) cannot share. > > > > No Sven, of course not. > And it becomes even more clear when we use the new word > "rectification" rather than penalty. > > The first revoke is rectified, since declarer received the number of > tricks he was due before the first revoke. > > The penalty trick cannot be seen as a "rectification", and even when > we called it a "penalty" under the 1997 laws, there was nothing in the > laws that guaranteed such a "penalty". The only absolute guarantee in > the laws was L64C, and that has been satisfied. > > As to the question of whether the "penalty" on the first revoke should > be "guaranteed", I believe this is simply the same question as the one > we've been looking at. Does the "equity" in L64C - when looking at the > second revoke - refer to the equity before the first or the second revoke. > > I understand that you "feel" that the penalty from the first revoke > ought not to be cancelled byt the second one, but there are some > people that "feel" that the 2 revokes are just one infraction, and > that they should be treated exactly the same way as a single revoke > that cuts communications and gains 3 tricks: those tricks are > cancelled, and equity is restored, but no additional windfall is to be > gained by the non-revokers. > > Come to think of it, and looking at it from that angle - I am getting > more and more drawn to the merits of the "Ton" camp. > > > Regards 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 twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 21 23:57:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You might not care - but you would be wrong in ruling "could have > known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who > does not know that he has revoked a first time. No - I wouldn't. Regardless of whether a player *does* know that he has previously revoked any player who has done so *COULD* know. > In fact then, Tim, what you are saying when you say you don't care, I did not say that I didn't care, I said we had no reason *to* care. Could have known applies. > is that you believe the equity referred to in L64C is the equity > after the first revoke. Herman, it's not a matter of "belief" - I merely point out that equity changes from trick to trick and that as TDs we are required to recognise that. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 22 00:01:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:01:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <474462FA.8040704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c82c92$81aff960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > The new text, just as the old, speaks of transferring a trick at the > end of play, and then checking for equity. That is still being done, > even after the second revoke. So the "rectification" for the first > revoke has not gone away. > > I would think that this is even clearer with the word rectification > than with the word penalty. Indeed, when after the whole action the > non-revoking side end up with the same number of tricks they would > have gotten without any revoke, it is easier for the TD to say "you > got rectification, did you not?" than to say "they were penalised, > were they not?". I simply have no idea what you are talking about or how you think. The expected result on the board just before the opening lead (knowing the cards) is a small slam going one down. Then a defender revokes and the rectification for this revoke will alter the expected result to small slam just made. This rectification changes the expected result on the board from going one down to the small slam just made. Then the same defender revokes in the same suit again, and according to Law 64B there is no rectification but an inspection under Law 64C to verify that this second revoke has not (itself) harmed the declaring side. It has not so the expected result still stands at small slam just made. >From everything you have written on this subject I have got the impression that your final ruling would be small slam down one because that was the equitable result just before the first revoke was committed? Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 22 00:06:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:06:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47446380.9010805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c82c93$20f37560$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Since the Laws consider that to revoke twice in the same suit does not > constitute a second offence, Where have you picked up that funny idea? Of course the second revoke constitutes a second offence; the laws are clear on that. But I suppose you created a mix-up for yourself in that there is no automatic rectification for the second revoke? Instead the Director must assess and rule on possible damage (specifically) due to it. Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 22 02:38:12 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:38:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > you would be wrong in ruling "could have > known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does > not know that he has revoked a first time. I can't believe the real Herman wrote this! "Could have known" is exactly the same sort of thing as a defender who could have seen the face of partner's exposed card. Nobody asks whether he actually did see the card or not. Any player "could have known" he revoked just by looking at his own hand; whether he did in fact know or not is irrelevant for L72B1 rulings. (It might be relevant for L72B2 or others.) I think the new Laws make things even clearer. L64B2 provides an explicit cross-reference to L64C. If the EBL wishes to change its past interpretation, this looks like a pretty good reason to do so. > From: "Sven Pran" > ...please avoid establishing any interpretation of > "equity" to the effect that I in addition should recommend the offender to > revoke a second time in the same suit I'm pleased to see Sven has changed his mind. As he correctly points out, L10C1 is relevant. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 22 02:39:44 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:39:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47446380.9010805@skynet.be> References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47444FC5.8020001@ntlworld.com> <47446380.9010805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4744DDE0.6070108@ntlworld.com> [nige1] In this case, common sense dictates that defenders should *not* benefit from a second infraction (i.e. The ruling must be 6S= or 6S+1 + PP/DP if appropriate) Any other ruling (6S-1 or 6S-4) is bizarre and unjust. [Herman de Wael] Since the Laws consider that to revoke twice in the same suit does not constitute a second offence, there is no common sense that makes us conclude the above. [nige2] Here, Herman seems mistaken; but he merits our gratitude for his devil's advocacy - if he can persuade law-makers to clarify possible ambiguities. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 22 02:46:44 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:46:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <200711201633.lAKGX9BQ020471@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200711201633.lAKGX9BQ020471@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4744DF84.70403@nhcc.net> >>East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >>The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. >>The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. > From: Adam Beneschan > In the 1997 Laws, I think [H-K] is pretty clearly UI, by Law 16C2, > since the HK is a withdrawn play. If I thought it were "clear," I wouldn't have asked. Adam's is certainly a reasonable interpretation, but is "picked up" really a subset of "withdrawn?" Was H-K even "played," given that it never became part of any trick? As others have written, the new Laws seem a little clearer, though I'm afraid it still isn't 100%. This would be a good topic for the "Appendix," I think. Just to flog my hobby horse again, the real problem is mixing mechanical "rectifications" with information restrictions. Though if the H-K is AI while it's on the table but UI after it's picked up, maybe this particular situation is not so bad. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Nov 22 23:42:02 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:42:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071122143908.01be5a08@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:38 PM 21/11/2007, you wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > you would be wrong in ruling "could have > > known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does > > not know that he has revoked a first time. > >I can't believe the real Herman wrote this! "Could have known" is I think that Herman has been hijacked. There was someone claiming to be Herman a few days ago who wished to move to the majority opinion provided a WBF opinion was forthcoming. What next? Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:41:04 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:41:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <474420CF.4050806@skynet.be> References: <4742B6E7.8080304@skynet.be> <000001c82bc0$fc00b880$f4022980$@com> <474420CF.4050806@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 21/11/2007, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Not to be wanting to appear to be splitting hairs, Harald makes a > small mistake : > > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > I, for one, find this approach very strange. I strongly agree with > > Max, David and others saying that the equity should be based on the > > situation AFTER the first revoke, that is, the expected result after > > transferring the number of tricks the law say for the actual first > > revoke. > > > > That should of course be : BEFORE the second revoke. > There might be some bad play in between the two revokes that changes > the equity between the two moments. > Indeed - I didn't express myself clearly (although I'm sure everybody understood my meaning). Thanks Herman. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > -- > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:56:54 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:56:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 21/11/2007, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Sorta looks like Herman is still testing the direction of the wind, to see > which way will give him the best personal position. Umm - that was uncalled for. As can be inferred quite easily from Herman's stance on several issues his standpoints are obviously his personal beliefs and some times clearly not in his best interest regariding his personal position. > > Rectification includes penalties where so shown. Mistakes in the play of the > game can and do produce inequitable results. The revoke law has penalties > in its application and the windfall for the non-offenders is part of the > game when they get an otherwise inequitable score. To think that a further > infraction can now cancel this position is silly. Law 64C says nothing > about establishing "equity" for the table, event, well played hand, etc., it > specifies "for the non-offending" side which gets an adjustment if > insufficiently compensate by all of Law 64. The non-offending side was > sufficiently compensated by the application of the penalty inherent in Law > 64A. Now we are going remove this compensation because there is a further > infraction by the offending side? I wholeheartedly agree with this. That further revoke(s) should improve the offenders result, whether this is done intentional or not, is ridiculous. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not > appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at boggles > my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not > there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of the > 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the > Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it doesn't > exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > >> David Burn wrote: > > > .............. > > >>> But the first irregularity does. And there is no provision at all in > > >> either > > >>> the 1997 or the 2007 laws for the second irregularity to cancel the > > >> penalty > > >>> provisions of the first. > > >> But they are not cancelled! > > >> Declarer will receive: > > >> -the number of tricks really gathered (say 3 down) > > >> -one penalty trick for that first revoke (making 2 down) > > >> -64C towards the first equity (so 1 down) > > > > > > HUH? > > > > > > The matter under discussion is (as far as I have noticed) the situation > > > when > > > the rectification (Law 64A) of a revoke results in a score more > > > favourable > > > for the non-offending side than could be expected ("equity") had the > > > revoke > > > not occurred, and a second revoke in the same suit is then committed by > > > the > > > same player in a later trick. > > > > > > This second revoke shall be dealt with under law 64C and the question is > > > simply whether "equity" now is the expected score immediately before the > > > first or immediately before the second revoke. > > > > > > Those who feel that "equity" is before the first revoke effectively > > > argue > > > that the rectification for the first revoke shall be cancelled (or > > > "nullified" as I wrote), a view that I (for one) cannot share. > > > > > > > No Sven, of course not. > > And it becomes even more clear when we use the new word > > "rectification" rather than penalty. > > > > The first revoke is rectified, since declarer received the number of > > tricks he was due before the first revoke. > > > > The penalty trick cannot be seen as a "rectification", and even when > > we called it a "penalty" under the 1997 laws, there was nothing in the > > laws that guaranteed such a "penalty". The only absolute guarantee in > > the laws was L64C, and that has been satisfied. > > > > As to the question of whether the "penalty" on the first revoke should > > be "guaranteed", I believe this is simply the same question as the one > > we've been looking at. Does the "equity" in L64C - when looking at the > > second revoke - refer to the equity before the first or the second revoke. > > > > I understand that you "feel" that the penalty from the first revoke > > ought not to be cancelled byt the second one, but there are some > > people that "feel" that the 2 revokes are just one infraction, and > > that they should be treated exactly the same way as a single revoke > > that cuts communications and gains 3 tricks: those tricks are > > cancelled, and equity is restored, but no additional windfall is to be > > gained by the non-revokers. > > > > Come to think of it, and looking at it from that angle - I am getting > > more and more drawn to the merits of the "Ton" camp. > > > > > Regards 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 10:14:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:14:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <000501c82c92$81aff960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000501c82c92$81aff960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47454873.10201@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> The new text, just as the old, speaks of transferring a trick at the >> end of play, and then checking for equity. That is still being done, >> even after the second revoke. So the "rectification" for the first >> revoke has not gone away. >> >> I would think that this is even clearer with the word rectification >> than with the word penalty. Indeed, when after the whole action the >> non-revoking side end up with the same number of tricks they would >> have gotten without any revoke, it is easier for the TD to say "you >> got rectification, did you not?" than to say "they were penalised, >> were they not?". > > I simply have no idea what you are talking about or how you think. > > The expected result on the board just before the opening lead (knowing the > cards) is a small slam going one down. > > Then a defender revokes and the rectification for this revoke will alter the > expected result to small slam just made. This rectification changes the > expected result on the board from going one down to the small slam just > made. > > Then the same defender revokes in the same suit again, and according to Law > 64B there is no rectification but an inspection under Law 64C to verify that > this second revoke has not (itself) harmed the declaring side. > > It has not so the expected result still stands at small slam just made. > >>From everything you have written on this subject I have got the impression > that your final ruling would be small slam down one because that was the > equitable result just before the first revoke was committed? > No, I am not yet certain about that. But it is what Ton and Antonio would do. And I cannot find any fault with that. What you seem not to grasp, is that when you apply L64C to the second revoke (as you indeed must do), this law talks about "equity". Not about "equity before the (second) revoke". Ton believes that there is only one equity, the one before the first revoke. I cannot find in the laws why that should be wrong. I was also of the opinion that the equity should be the one before the second revoke, but I am no longer so certain about that: - The lawmakers have clearly intended the second revoke to be not punished; - There is no need to assume that a player will knowingly revoke a second time, and if he does, we can catch him and punish in the way you want; - There is no absolute guarantee that a revoke will produce a windfall for the opponents. The word change from "penalty" to "rectification" strengthens that belief. So if the WBFLC wishes to confirm that this is the interpretation, I am for adopting it. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 10:22:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:22:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47454A65.6000205@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Sorta looks like Herman is still testing the direction of the wind, to see > which way will give him the best personal position. > I am, but you attribute design where none is present. > Rectification includes penalties where so shown. Mistakes in the play of the > game can and do produce inequitable results. The revoke law has penalties > in its application and the windfall for the non-offenders is part of the > game when they get an otherwise inequitable score. To think that a further > infraction can now cancel this position is silly. Why? It's very easy to say that, Kojak. But there are a few on this side of the pond who don't believe it is silly. Those people could easily say "to believe that it is OK for a revoke that breaks communications to no produce windfalls, but that to do so by multiple revokes must by force create windfalls, is silly". > Law 64C says nothing > about establishing "equity" for the table, event, well played hand, etc., it > specifies "for the non-offending" side which gets an adjustment if > insufficiently compensate by all of Law 64. The non-offending side was > sufficiently compensated by the application of the penalty inherent in Law > 64A. Now we are going remove this compensation because there is a further > infraction by the offending side? > Yes? - because they are still sufficiently compensated (for the two revokes together) by their score of -1, which they should attribute to their bad bidding, not their opponents' double revoke. Indeed the one trick penalty is "sufficient" compensation. But it is also over-compensation. So yes, it may fall away again by a further infraction. The sufficient compensation is still there, the over-compensation has gone. To think that the NOs are entitled to this over-compensation is, to use your words, silly. A point which is further proven by the chang of penalty to rectification. NOs have sufficient rectification. > And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not > appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at boggles > my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not > there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of the > 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the > Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it doesn't > exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. > I admit to not having read the law before writing all this, relying solely on memory. I do not think that I have made mistakes though, apart from using the word equity which is not present in the body of the law, but certainly in its spirit. > Kojak > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 10:28:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:28:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> you would be wrong in ruling "could have >> known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does >> not know that he has revoked a first time. > > I can't believe the real Herman wrote this! "Could have known" is > exactly the same sort of thing as a defender who could have seen the > face of partner's exposed card. Nobody asks whether he actually did see > the card or not. Any player "could have known" he revoked just by > looking at his own hand; whether he did in fact know or not is > irrelevant for L72B1 rulings. (It might be relevant for L72B2 or others.) > I would like to jump in here, if I may, by saying that if you rule that a player who has revoked once "could have known" that to revoke again would be to his benefit, then you are at the same time ruling that he did know that he revoked, and that he maliciously hid his revoke by revoking again, something which he is not allowed to do. You are, in fact, calling him a cheat. A player who does not realize that he has revoked once "could NOT have known" that to revoke now (to him, that would be just the first time) would be to his benefit. That is why I believe that the could have known route is not possible. We must rule this by L64C, on the second revoke, and we must decide whether L64C applies to the situation as a whole or to the equity including the penalty for the first revoke. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 10:29:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:29:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47454C08.7010005@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > I'm pleased to see Sven has changed his mind. As he correctly points > out, L10C1 is relevant. > L10C1 cannot apply, since no-one has discovered the first revoke yet. If they have, everything becomes different and it is impossible for revoker to revoke again (barring serious penalties). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 10:31:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:31:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071122143908.01be5a08@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071122143908.01be5a08@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47454C67.5050706@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 05:38 PM 21/11/2007, you wrote: >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> you would be wrong in ruling "could have >>> known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does >>> not know that he has revoked a first time. >> I can't believe the real Herman wrote this! "Could have known" is > > I think that Herman has been hijacked. There was someone claiming > to be Herman a few days ago who wished to move to the majority > opinion provided a WBF opinion was forthcoming. > > What next? > > Tony (Sydney) > Thanks Tony, for brightening my day. :-) Belonging to a majority, I must be getting old! Even worse - wishing to belong to a majority! Even worse than that - sitting on the fence waiting to see where the majority will form! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 22 10:56:20 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:56:20 EST Subject: [blml] AI or UI Message-ID: >In a message dated 21/11/2007 06:34:35 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be >writes: >Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > > >This reminds me of a somewhat different one, where my partner led a club out > >of turn. The declarer, having been read his options, chose that I led a >> club, but I was void. I therefore led another suit, and the director seemed > >uncertain whether the fact that I had a club void was now UI to my partner, as >> that information was not gleaned from the "withdrawn action" but was gleaned >> from the failure to comply with the penalty, but I think that it was "arising" >> from the "withdrawn action" so is UI. Those more familiar with this than I > >will no doubt regard this as trivial. >It was a question a friend of mine had at his exam, and the expected >answer was : "sheer luck : apply last sentence of L72B5". >The exemple given by the teacher was the case of a player dropping an >Ace during the play, thereby being compelled to execute the Emperor's coup. Hmm ... the version of the 1997 laws I possess only has a L72B4, not a L72B5, and the 2007 Laws appear to only have a L72B3. Could you clarify this, please. Interestingly, I have had different opinions on whether the club void is, as you suggest, sheer luck, or, as I think, governed by: "16 C2 (and, identically, 16D2 in the new Laws): For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. " It would seem to me that the club void with the correct opening leader is UI to his partner, as this information was "*arising* from its own withdrawn action" where "its" clearly refers to the offending side, and "arising from" means, IMHO, "occurring as a consequence of". The new laws have 50E3 (50E is new):"If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score." However, it is the failure to comply with the penalty that conveys the information, not the exposed card itself, so under this law, I think the club void is AI under this clause. I think, from 16C2 (16D2) however, that the club void is UI, and the player leading out of turn will have the usual duties. But so far, four directors I asked were split 2-2. Paul From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 22 11:26:23 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:26:23 EST Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Message-ID: In a message dated 22/11/2007 09:27:49 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: I would like to jump in here, if I may, by saying that if you rule that a player who has revoked once "could have known" that to revoke again would be to his benefit, then you are at the same time ruling that he did know that he revoked, and that he maliciously hid his revoke by revoking again, something which he is not allowed to do. You are, in fact, calling him a cheat. About the most illogical conclusion from Herman that I have come across. "then you are at the same time ruling that he did know that he revoked," No, you are not. And this is, surely, the whole purpose of the "could have known" that appears in more than one place in the Laws. You are no more calling him a cheat, than you are the person who hesitates without the queen with when declarer leads the J from AJT9x towards Kxxx. Paul From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 22 12:15:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c82cf9$064e4210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > >Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > >This reminds me of a somewhat different one, where my partner led a > > >club out of turn. > > > The declarer, having been read his options, chose that I led a > > > club, but I was void. I therefore led another suit, and the > > > director seemed uncertain whether the fact that I had a club > > > void was now UI to my partner, as that information was not > > > gleaned from the "withdrawn action" but was gleaned from the > > > failure to comply with the penalty, but I think that it was > > > "arising" from the "withdrawn action" so is UI. If you had a club your lead would have been a revoke. With the 2007 laws your partner is allowed to ask if you do not have any clubs in order to avoid this revoke to become established, and there will be no problem. But it is not a fact "from legal play" that you are void in clubs so unless he asks the information to avoid an established revoke the "fact" that you are void in clubs is UI to him. Similarly: The information that he has a particular card as a penalty card and the requirements for him to play that card is AI to you as long as the card remains a penalty card. But once that card ceases to be a penalty card the information that he actually has this card in his hand is UI to you. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 22 12:24:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:24:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <4744DF84.70403@nhcc.net> References: <200711201633.lAKGX9BQ020471@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DF84.70403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <474566F1.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >>> The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. >>> The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. >>> > > >> From: Adam Beneschan >> In the 1997 Laws, I think [H-K] is pretty clearly UI, by Law 16C2, >> since the HK is a withdrawn play. >> > > If I thought it were "clear," I wouldn't have asked. Adam's is > certainly a reasonable interpretation, but is "picked up" really a > subset of "withdrawn?" Was H-K even "played," given that it never > became part of any trick? > > > I'd say it was, because it complies with the specifications of L45C. L47B tells us about picking up played cards when they were illegally played, thereby implying that "illegally played" is a subset of "played". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 22 12:24:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:24:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: <4744DF84.70403@nhcc.net> References: <200711201633.lAKGX9BQ020471@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DF84.70403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <474566F1.8000505@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn. >>> The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart lead. >>> The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q. >>> > > >> From: Adam Beneschan >> In the 1997 Laws, I think [H-K] is pretty clearly UI, by Law 16C2, >> since the HK is a withdrawn play. >> > > If I thought it were "clear," I wouldn't have asked. Adam's is > certainly a reasonable interpretation, but is "picked up" really a > subset of "withdrawn?" Was H-K even "played," given that it never > became part of any trick? > > > I'd say it was, because it complies with the specifications of L45C. L47B tells us about picking up played cards when they were illegally played, thereby implying that "illegally played" is a subset of "played". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 22 12:47:19 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:47:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI or UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47456C47.8090103@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > > Hmm ... the version of the 1997 laws I possess only has a L72B4, not a > L72B5, and the 2007 Laws appear to only have a L72B3. Could you clarify this, > please. > Sorry. A5. > "16 C2 (and, identically, 16D2 in the new Laws): For the offending side, > information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of > the non-offending side is unauthorised. " > > It would seem to me that the club void with the correct opening leader is UI > to his partner, as this information was "*arising* from its own withdrawn > action" where "its" clearly refers to the offending side, and "arising from" > means, IMHO, "occurring as a consequence of". > AG : IMHO, it arises as a consequence of declarer's choice, because it wouldn't have occurred, present the infraction but absent declarer's decision. But you're right, it's open to discussion. I'm ready to classify the case with the following one : East leads a Spade OOT. South requests a Spade lead from West, into his tenace. For some strange reason, it turns out to be the lethal lead. Declarer was unlucky. Here, he was unlucky to demand a club, which happened to be useful to the defense through information that arose from the non-lead (not from the LOOT). The problem is, L72A5 (yes, A) refers us to L16, but doesn't say when L16 might apply. I think the spirit of that reference is that, even after the HK is withdrawn and the lead penalty played, the fact that the player leading the King will often have the Queen too is UI. Am I wrong by thinking that the word "arise" shan't be used in reference to very indirect consequences, as here, because it carries the notion of suddennness ? Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 12:55:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 22/11/2007 09:27:49 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > > I would like to jump in here, if I may, by saying that if you rule > that a player who has revoked once "could have known" that to revoke > again would be to his benefit, then you are at the same time ruling > that he did know that he revoked, and that he maliciously hid his > revoke by revoking again, something which he is not allowed to do. You > are, in fact, calling him a cheat. > > About the most illogical conclusion from Herman that I have come across. > certainly not! in fact, very logical. > "then you are at the same time ruling that he did know that he revoked," > > No, you are not. And this is, surely, the whole purpose of the "could have > known" that appears in more than one place in the Laws. You are no more calling > him a cheat, than you are the person who hesitates without the queen with > when declarer leads the J from AJT9x towards Kxxx. > Of course you are not calling that man a cheat - because you are saying "you could have known!" OTOH, the person who does not know he has revoked once, can NOT know that to revoke (again) would be to his benefit. The only time he CAN know that it would be to his benefit, is when he knows he has revoked before. So by ruling that he could have known, you are ruling that he in fact knew that he had revoked before - therefore, he has committed a far greater infraction than the one you are accusing him of directly. > Paul > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Thu Nov 22 14:05:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:05:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> you would be wrong in ruling "could have >>> known" (that a revoke might be beneficial) against a player who does >>> not know that he has revoked a first time. >> >> I can't believe the real Herman wrote this! "Could have known" is >> exactly the same sort of thing as a defender who could have seen the >> face of partner's exposed card. Nobody asks whether he actually did see >> the card or not. Any player "could have known" he revoked just by >> looking at his own hand; whether he did in fact know or not is >> irrelevant for L72B1 rulings. (It might be relevant for L72B2 or >> others.) >> Ye Gods! "could have known" clearly means "probably didn't know". If the asshole had been awake he "would have known" but he was asleep. The whole point is that for legal reasons and to avoid libel cases we don't want to know about intent. We don't want to know about "did or didn't know". We just say "Had you had half a brain asshole and were awake even you, you pea-brained failed biological experiment, would have seen you could stuff your opponents, and YOU AIN'T GETTING AWAY WITH IT". 64C says the same, of course, but if HdW won't let me use it, then I'm going via 72B1. John > > I would like to jump in here, if I may, by saying that if you rule > that a player who has revoked once "could have known" that to revoke > again would be to his benefit, then you are at the same time ruling > that he did know that he revoked, and that he maliciously hid his > revoke by revoking again, something which he is not allowed to do. You > are, in fact, calling him a cheat. > A player who does not realize that he has revoked once "could NOT have > known" that to revoke now (to him, that would be just the first time) > would be to his benefit. > > That is why I believe that the could have known route is not possible. > We must rule this by L64C, on the second revoke, and we must decide > whether L64C applies to the situation as a whole or to the equity > including the penalty for the first revoke. > > > -- > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 22 14:38:07 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:38:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4745863F.7020005@ulb.ac.be> John Probst a ?crit : > Ye Gods! "could have known" clearly means "probably didn't know". If the > asshole had been awake he "would have known" but he was asleep. The whole > point is that for legal reasons and to avoid libel cases we don't want to > know about intent. We don't want to know about "did or didn't know". We just > say "Had you had half a brain asshole and were awake even you, you > pea-brained failed biological experiment, would have seen you could stuff > your opponents, and YOU AIN'T GETTING AWAY WITH IT". 64C says the same, of > course, but if HdW won't let me use it, then I'm going via 72B1. John > Whow ! If that's the meaning, it could lead to abuse cases in lieu of libel. I'd like to rephrase it as "you aren't cheating, but your deeds in this situation are the same a cheat would have carried, and therefore we have to penalize them as if you were, if only for the sake of coherence". Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 22 16:16:15 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:16:15 EST Subject: [blml] AI or UI Message-ID: In a message dated 22/11/2007 11:47:35 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: >> It would seem to me that the club void with the correct opening leader is UI >> to his partner, as this information was "*arising* from its own withdrawn >> action" where "its" clearly refers to the offending side, and "arising from" >> means, IMHO, "occurring as a consequence of". > >.AG : IMHO, it arises as a consequence of declarer's choice, because it >wouldn't have occurred, present the infraction but absent declarer's >decision. >But you're right, it's open to discussion. >I'm ready to classify the case with the following one : >.East leads a Spade OOT. South requests a Spade lead from West, into his >tenace. For some strange reason, it turns out to be the lethal lead. >Declarer was unlucky. I would agree with the last case, and no adjustment is needed. However, I do not see the two cases as at all comparable. In the case where the correct leader is asked to lead a club but is unable to comply, his club void seems to be UI to his partner. His partner has only gained the information as an indirect result of an infraction, albeit fortuitously. "Arising from" does not imply "as a direct consequence of" either, or the clause would say the latter. My interpretation would be that information which would not have been gleaned had the infraction not occurred is UI. I do not think that "arising from" indicates suddenness. The driver in the 1963 Great Train Robbery, Jack Mills, had facial bruising and later health problems arising from being hit on the head with an iron bar. He eventually died from leukemia, not arising from being hit with an iron bar. Paul From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 22 16:31:11 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:31:11 EST Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Message-ID: >In a message dated 22/11/2007 13:39:41 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be >writes: >I'd like to rephrase it as "you aren't cheating, but your deeds in this >situation are the same a cheat would have carried, and therefore we have >to penalize them as if you were, if only for the sake of coherence". It is impossible to say just what I mean! But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen Would it have been worth while If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl, And turning toward the window, should say: ?That is not it at all, That is not what I meant, at all." I am sure the "politic, cautious and meticulous" TD will avoid using any reference to the word cheat. "Could have known" will do nicely. And anyone "could have known" about two revokes in the same suit without being a cheat. Paul From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 16:43:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:43:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > > Ye Gods! "could have known" clearly means "probably didn't know". If the No John, could have known means "could have known". This man could not have known. You need to make the distinction between 2 pieces of knowledge: -could have known that he revoked -could have known that to revoke next would be in best interest Of course the first "could have known" is true. But the second one is not. Either this player: knows that he has revoked, and hasn't said anything - then he is a cheat; Or this player: does not know that he has revoked, and in that case he CAN NOT know that it would be to his advantage to revoke again. There is not a single case in which to revoke once is advantageous, so he can only know that it is now, if he knows about the first revoke. Ergo, to rule that the player "could have known that it would be beneficial to revoke" is equal to ruling that the player knew he had revoked before and was cheating. > asshole had been awake he "would have known" but he was asleep. The whole > point is that for legal reasons and to avoid libel cases we don't want to > know about intent. We don't want to know about "did or didn't know". We just > say "Had you had half a brain asshole and were awake even you, you > pea-brained failed biological experiment, would have seen you could stuff > your opponents, and YOU AIN'T GETTING AWAY WITH IT". 64C says the same, of > course, but if HdW won't let me use it, then I'm going via 72B1. John No, HdW has not yet decided you cannot use L64C, he's just saying that L72B1 means you will get that libel case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Thu Nov 22 17:21:52 2007 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:21:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> References: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > OTOH, the person who does not know he has revoked once, can NOT know > that to revoke (again) would be to his benefit. The only time he CAN > know that it would be to his benefit, is when he knows he has revoked > before. So by ruling that he could have known, you are ruling that he > in fact knew that he had revoked before - therefore, he has committed > a far greater infraction than the one you are accusing him of directly. Well, then let us look at one of the most basic "could have known" cases. North opens 2NT (20-22). East passes, and South, holding a Yarborough with 7 clubs, bids 3C (which is Stayman). You investigate and find out that South thought for a moment that partner had opened 1NT, after which bidding 2C (Stayman) and then 3C is the way to bail out with a long minor. So you apply (1997) L27. North being barred, South bids 3C and plays there for a very good result. What's your ruling here? Score stands, because (allegedly) believing that partner opened 1NT, South could not have known that the insufficient bid could well work to his advantage? I.e. are you saying that if I adjust here, I have to call South an outright liar and that I should only apply L23 if I am convinced that he knew perfectly well that his partner opened 2NT? This is certainly not what the "could have known" laws are there for. Matthias From Gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 22 17:34:29 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:34:29 EST Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Message-ID: In a message dated 22/11/2007 16:23:39 GMT Standard Time, matthias.schueller at gmx.de writes: >North opens 2NT (20-22). East passes, and South, holding a Yarborough >with 7 clubs, bids 3C (which is Stayman). I think you mean that he bid 2C, which was insufficient. >You investigate and find out >that South thought for a moment that partner had opened 1NT, after which >bidding 2C (Stayman) and then 3C is the way to bail out with a long >minor. So you apply (1997) L27. Because the bid could be conventional. I agree (27B2). >North being barred, South bids 3C and >plays there for a very good result. >What's your ruling here? Score stands, because (allegedly) believing >that partner opened 1NT, South could not have known that the >insufficient bid could well work to his advantage? I.e. are you saying >that if I adjust here, I have to call South an outright liar and that I >should only apply L23 if I am convinced that he knew perfectly well that >his partner opened 2NT? >This is certainly not what the "could have known" laws are there for. I am not sure if I detect a hint of sarcasm here; this is exactly what the law is there for; there are two possibilities a) he knew that his partner opened 2NT and stated he thought it was 1NT b) he thought his partner had opened 1NT Most would regard the "could have known" law as being there so that the director has no need whatsoever to decide between a) and b). From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Thu Nov 22 17:50:11 2007 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:50:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4745B343.2000801@gmx.de> Gampas at aol.com schrieb: > In a message dated 22/11/2007 16:23:39 GMT Standard Time, > matthias.schueller at gmx.de writes: > >> North opens 2NT (20-22). East passes, and South, holding a Yarborough >> with 7 clubs, bids 3C (which is Stayman). > > I think you mean that he bid 2C, which was insufficient. Indeed. >> You investigate and find out >> that South thought for a moment that partner had opened 1NT, after which >> bidding 2C (Stayman) and then 3C is the way to bail out with a long >> minor. So you apply (1997) L27. > > Because the bid could be conventional. I agree (27B2). > >> North being barred, South bids 3C and >> plays there for a very good result. > >> What's your ruling here? Score stands, because (allegedly) believing >> that partner opened 1NT, South could not have known that the >> insufficient bid could well work to his advantage? I.e. are you saying >> that if I adjust here, I have to call South an outright liar and that I >> should only apply L23 if I am convinced that he knew perfectly well that >> his partner opened 2NT? > >> This is certainly not what the "could have known" laws are there for. > > I am not sure if I detect a hint of sarcasm here; this is exactly what the > law is there for; there are two possibilities > a) he knew that his partner opened 2NT and stated he thought it was 1NT > b) he thought his partner had opened 1NT > > Most would regard the "could have known" law as being there so that the > director has no need whatsoever to decide between a) and b). If I was not being clear: I meant that having to make the distinction between a) and b) is not what the "could have known" laws want us to do. I definitely adjust the score in my example (basically no matter what South tells me); the point I was trying to make is that it is not a prerequisite for the application of L23 or (1997) L72B1 that this specific offender was actually aware of the fact that he was committing an irregularity - because that seems to be what Herman implies. Matthias From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 22 17:59:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:59:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be> <47454A65.6000205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c82d29$26300750$3ac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >> And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not >> appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at >> boggles >> my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not >> there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of >> the >> 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the >> Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it >> doesn't >> exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. >> >> (Herman) > I admit to not having read the law before writing all this, relying > solely on memory. I do not think that I have made mistakes though, > apart from using the word equity which is not present in the body of > the law, but certainly in its spirit. > +=+ We need to be careful in our reading of the 2007 Laws. The Introduction no longer gives notice that headings do not constitute part of the laws. Instead it says that a heading never has the effect of limiting the application of any law. 64C does indicate that the Director should ensure that a non- offending pair is sufficiently compensated 'for the damage caused'. If he is not satisfied this is achieved he is to award an adjusted score. The award of an adjusted score is governed by Law 12. In 2007 Law 12B1 the laws establish that damage is to be assessed by comparison with the result that the non-offending side was on course to obtain when the infraction occurred. This transparency of all this is so plain that I fail to imagine what exists to be argued about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Nov 22 18:13:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:13:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4745B8AC.4020806@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated 22/11/2007 13:39:41 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be >> writes: > >> I'd like to rephrase it as "you aren't cheating, but your deeds in this >> situation are the same a cheat would have carried, and therefore we have >> to penalize them as if you were, if only for the sake of coherence". > > It is impossible to say just what I mean! > But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen > Would it have been worth while > If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl, > And turning toward the window, should say: > ???That is not it at all, > That is not what I meant, at all." > > I am sure the "politic, cautious and meticulous" TD will avoid using any > reference to the word cheat. "Could have known" will do nicely. > > And anyone "could have known" about two revokes in the same suit without > being a cheat. > Yes, but the question is not whether one can know there is something like a double revoke. The question is whether a player could know that it would be in his benefit to revoke in this precise instant. In order to be able to know that, the player must first know he has already revoked once, and if that knowledge is absent, there is no way he can know that to revoke now would be in his benefit. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 22 19:02:42 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:02:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745B8AC.4020806@skynet.be> References: <4745B8AC.4020806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4745C442.6040102@ntlworld.com> [Herman De Wael] Yes, but the question is not whether one can know there is something like a double revoke. The question is whether a player could know that it would be in his benefit to revoke in this precise instant. In order to be able to know that, the player must first know he has already revoked once, and if that knowledge is absent, there is no way he can know that to revoke now would be in his benefit. [nige1] I think I understand Herman's distinction. To deduce that the second revoke may work to his benefit, the player must be aware that he has already revoked. The double revoke is not quite the same Paul's example of hesitating with a small doubleton when declarer leads the knave towards dummy's Kxxx. It seems slightly more suspicious than Mathias' case of bidding 2C over 2N with a long club suit and a Yarborough. IMO it is more like bidding 1H over partner's 2D transfer when you've psyched a weak notrump on an six count. It seems less like a mental aberration and more like a deliberate attempt to gain advantage. Nevertheless, I still feel that it should (almost automatically) be ruled as "could have known". From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 22 21:55:01 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:55:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be><47454A65.6000205@skynet.be> <002201c82d29$26300750$3ac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:59 Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************** > "Don't throw away the old bucket until > you know whether the new one holds > water." - Swedish saying. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > >> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >>> And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not >>> appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at >>> boggles >>> my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not >>> there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of >>> the >>> 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the >>> Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it >>> doesn't >>> exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. >>> >>> (Herman) >> I admit to not having read the law before writing all this, relying >> solely on memory. I do not think that I have made mistakes though, >> apart from using the word equity which is not present in the body of >> the law, but certainly in its spirit. >> > +=+ We need to be careful in our reading of the 2007 Laws. The > Introduction no longer gives notice that headings do not constitute > part of the laws. Instead it says that a heading never has the effect > of limiting the application of any law. > 64C does indicate that the Director should ensure that a non- > offending pair is sufficiently compensated 'for the damage caused'. The law does not impose the duty upon the TD to deem, or not, sufficient compensation for each revoke ruling. There is no mission by law that he ensure the NOS is sufficiently compensated. The limit of 64C is for the TD to ensure to impose an adjusted score should the event occur that he deemed the compensation of 64 insufficient. The law provides no yardstick that determines that an adjusted score in and of itself is sufficient compensation. regards roger pewick > If he is not satisfied this is achieved he is to award an adjusted score. > The award of an adjusted score is governed by Law 12. In 2007 > Law 12B1 the laws establish that damage is to be assessed by > comparison with the result that the non-offending side was on course > to obtain when the infraction occurred. > This transparency of all this is so plain that I fail to imagine what > exists to be argued about. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 22 23:52:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:52:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c82d5a$691c5470$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............... > > +=+ We need to be careful in our reading of the 2007 Laws. The > > Introduction no longer gives notice that headings do not constitute > > part of the laws. Instead it says that a heading never has the effect > > of limiting the application of any law. > > 64C does indicate that the Director should ensure that a non- > > offending pair is sufficiently compensated 'for the damage caused'. > > > > The law does not impose the duty upon the TD to deem, or not, sufficient > compensation for each revoke ruling. There is no mission by law that he > ensure the NOS is sufficiently compensated. > HUH? > > > The limit of 64C is for the TD to ensure to impose an adjusted score > should > the event occur that he deemed the compensation of 64 insufficient. > > > > The law provides no yardstick that determines that an adjusted score in > and > of itself is sufficient compensation. > The Director will very seldom if ever on his own initiative make any adjustments under law 64C, but whenever he rules on a revoke situation he should inform the non-offending side about their rights to have such adjustment if they believe that the compensation given them under Law 64A (or not given them under law 64B) would still leave them damaged by the revoke. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 23 00:39:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:39:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745863F.7020005@ulb.ac.be> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu> <4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> <4745863F.7020005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 22, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'd like to rephrase it as "you aren't cheating, but your deeds in > this > situation are the same a cheat would have carried, and therefore we > have > to penalize them as if you were, if only for the sake of coherence". > IME, if you use the word "cheat" to a bridge player in trying to explain your ruling, that is the *only* word he will hear. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 23 00:47:28 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:47:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745C442.6040102@ntlworld.com> References: <4745B8AC.4020806@skynet.be> <4745C442.6040102@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <9EA7CDD7-378F-4314-953C-FB8B4A36ED02@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 22, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Nevertheless, I still feel that it should (almost automatically) be > ruled as "could have known". "Could have known" implies this is a judgement case. I submit that it is dangerous, at best, to suggest that *any* judgement ruling should be made "almost automatically". From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 23 00:54:37 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:54:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be><47454A65.6000205@skynet.be><002201c82d29$26300750$3ac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001401c82d63$e56fa2d0$51d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >>> (Grattan) >> +=+ We need to be careful in our reading of the 2007 Laws. The >> Introduction no longer gives notice that headings do not constitute >> part of the laws. Instead it says that a heading never has the effect >> of limiting the application of any law. >> 64C does indicate that the Director should ensure that a non- >> offending pair is sufficiently compensated 'for the damage caused'. > > The law does not impose the duty upon the TD to deem, or not, sufficient > compensation for each revoke ruling. There is no mission by law that he > ensure the NOS is sufficiently compensated. > > The limit of 64C is for the TD to ensure to impose an adjusted > score should the event occur that he deemed the compensation > of 64 insufficient. > > > > The law provides no yardstick that determines that an adjusted > score in and of itself is sufficient compensation. > +=+ +=+ Hi Roger, Law 64C imposes a requirement that the Director shall award an adjusted score if he deems the NOS insufficiently compensated by the normal application of Law 64 A and B. The Director must then refer to Law 12 since it is Law 12 that says how scores shall be adjusted. It tells us first of all, and for application whenever a score is adjusted, that the objective of his adjustment is "to redress damage to a non offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction". So this must be his aim. He is then told what constitutes damage: Law 12 says that damage exists when "because of an infraction an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." As far as this may be understood, the Director is instructed as to what he shall aim to do. Currently the WBF Drafting Committee is just now exploring (in quite another connection) the question of the meaning of the 'because of an infraction' statement in Law 12B1. One member demurs, and three have yet to address the subject, but three of its seven members are supporting an interpretation that reads: "Damage exists when, the result having been affected by an infraction, a non-offending side obtains a result worse than the result it was on course to obtain when the infraction occurred" There is some way to go yet, no certainty, but - as to wind direction - an indication of the tendency :-) of the draught (or draft) may be inferred from this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Nov 21 14:10:59 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:10:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A different infraction Message-ID: <0db101c82c3f$f6449270$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Perhaps this has already been discussed on BLML, sorry if it has: http://www.pzbs.pl/kmpp/2007/list2007/analizy200711.htm#31 Deal #31, Dealer South, North-South vulnerable. Two not very strong pairs, irregular partnerships. South opens 1H, West overcalls 2S. North asks and East explains 2S as 9 - 11 with 6S. North makes a negative double, East passes, South rebids 3C (clearly a huge underbid but "only 11 points partner") and West rebids his spades - 3S. North doubles, the contract is cold, North - South actually misdefend and let declarer take 10 tricks. North - South call the TD and claim having been demaged because of misinformation. You see that indeed they have been misinformed but there seems to be no connection between the infraction and the result. North - South have damaged themselves through ridiculous bidding (both the 3C bid and North's double are out of this world). Even if you somehow disagree about this assertion about the lack of influence of the MI please assume that this is the case. However, you can see that West received UI from his partner's explanation and his 3S bid might well have been an attempt to "correct" his partner's idea about the strength of the 2S bid. But it looks that either North - South haven't noticed or have no complaints about the use of UI by their opponents. What do you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of L81C6? Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by? If not - what is the difference between these two situations? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071121/4b2c3685/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 23 08:52:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:52:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <474686AD.2080909@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > No John, could have known means "could have known". This man could not > have known. > > You need to make the distinction between 2 pieces of knowledge: > -could have known that he revoked > -could have known that to revoke next would be in best interest > > Of course the first "could have known" is true. But the second one is not. > > Either this player: knows that he has revoked, and hasn't said > anything - then he is a cheat; > No Sir. If he realizes that he has revoked on a previous trick, L72 B3 explicitly allows him to keep mum about it. In that case, he might realize at the same time that it might be favorable to him to revoke a second time and home declarer claims at some time of the deal. In that case, old L72B4 says he may not ; and L72B1 implies it, too. Ergo, it is perfectly possible for somebody to rewoke in all good faith and revoke a second time in no faith at all. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 23 08:54:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:54:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> References: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> Message-ID: <47468739.7000809@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Sch?ller a ?crit : > Well, then let us look at one of the most basic "could have known" cases. > > North opens 2NT (20-22). East passes, and South, holding a Yarborough > with 7 clubs, bids 3C (which is Stayman). You investigate and find out > that South thought for a moment that partner had opened 1NT All right, but why on Earth should you investigate ? The TD shan't be called after the bidding begins 2NT-3C, should he ? From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 23 10:15:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <474686AD.2080909@ulb.ac.be> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> <474686AD.2080909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47469A39.3090306@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> No John, could have known means "could have known". This man could not >> have known. >> >> You need to make the distinction between 2 pieces of knowledge: >> -could have known that he revoked >> -could have known that to revoke next would be in best interest >> >> Of course the first "could have known" is true. But the second one is not. >> >> Either this player: knows that he has revoked, and hasn't said >> anything - then he is a cheat; >> > > No Sir. If he realizes that he has revoked on a previous trick, L72 B3 > explicitly allows him to keep mum about it. But L72B4 specifically forbids him to revoke again! Oh, you did see that. > In that case, he might realize at the same time that it might be > favorable to him to revoke a second time and home declarer claims at > some time of the deal. > In that case, old L72B4 says he may not ; and L72B1 implies it, too. > > Ergo, it is perfectly possible for somebody to rewoke in all good faith > and revoke a second time in no faith at all. > Indeed. Which is why, if someone rules that a player knew (or could have known) that to revoke again would be to his benefit, that TD also rules that the player has maliciously broken L72B4. Since we expect our players to be of good faith, we should not rule a "could have known" when that implies "knew he was committing an irregularity, and did it anyway". > > Best regards > > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 23 10:21:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:21:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> References: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> Message-ID: <47469B82.6070304@skynet.be> Matthias Sch?ller wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> OTOH, the person who does not know he has revoked once, can NOT know >> that to revoke (again) would be to his benefit. The only time he CAN >> know that it would be to his benefit, is when he knows he has revoked >> before. So by ruling that he could have known, you are ruling that he >> in fact knew that he had revoked before - therefore, he has committed >> a far greater infraction than the one you are accusing him of directly. > > Well, then let us look at one of the most basic "could have known" cases. > > North opens 2NT (20-22). East passes, and South, holding a Yarborough > with 7 clubs, bids 3C (which is Stayman). I assume you mean 2C. > You investigate and find out > that South thought for a moment that partner had opened 1NT, after which > bidding 2C (Stayman) and then 3C is the way to bail out with a long > minor. So you apply (1997) L27. North being barred, South bids 3C and > plays there for a very good result. > > What's your ruling here? Score stands, because (allegedly) believing > that partner opened 1NT, South could not have known that the > insufficient bid could well work to his advantage? I.e. are you saying > that if I adjust here, I have to call South an outright liar and that I > should only apply L23 if I am convinced that he knew perfectly well that > his partner opened 2NT? > > This is certainly not what the "could have known" laws are there for. > No, but the infraction here is the same one. South committed an infraction, and he "could have known" that it would work to his advantage. In the double revoke case, the player commits an infraction, but he cannot know it would work to his advantage (revoking -once- never does) _unless_ he is aware of the situation, which means he has committed a second, more grave infraction in addition to the one he has done. In your case, we can believe that South made an inadvertent IB; in the revoke case, we must assume that he has done two wilful infractions. That is the difference between the two cases and I think it is an important one. > Matthias > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 23 11:17:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:17:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47469A39.3090306@skynet.be> References: <200711201618.lAKGIhmJ016249@cfa.harvard.edu><4744DD84.7010403@nhcc.net> <47454BB3.1060402@skynet.be> <002e01c82d08$64513110$0701a8c0@john> <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> <474686AD.2080909@ulb.ac.be> <47469A39.3090306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4746A8B9.3040300@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Which is why, if someone rules that a player knew (or could have > known) that to revoke again would be to his benefit, that TD also > rules that the player has maliciously broken L72B4. > > AG : or rather, that he could have. There are still two possibilities : 1) he didn't notice, even now, that he still holds a plum in his hand (allowed) 2) he noticed the remaining plum, and didn't give it a damn (severe infraction) As usual, we don't say it's 2), but we might say it could be. WTP ? This is no more, and no less, of an hypocrisy than any other "could have" ruling. This ruling is seldom made, but IMHO it might be made within the actual laws and without shouting "cheat". Perhaps the events at the table could make 2) more plausible (based on questions, surprise, ...) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 23 11:24:05 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:24:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <47469B82.6070304@skynet.be> References: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de> <47469B82.6070304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4746AA45.8080400@ulb.ac.be> > > No, but the infraction here is the same one. South committed an > infraction, and he "could have known" that it would work to his advantage. > In the double revoke case, the player commits an infraction, but he > cannot know it would work to his advantage (revoking -once- never > does) _unless_ he is aware of the situation, which means he has > committed a second, more grave infraction in addition to the one he > has done. > > In your case, we can believe that South made an inadvertent IB; in the > revoke case, we must assume that he has done two wilful infractions. > > I still don't see the difference within the "could have" paradigm. Both cases can be analyzed as follows : - either the infraction (second revoke / IB) is inadvertent (quite possible) - or the infraction was made purposely, in order to gain an advantage (masking the first revoke / shutting out partner), which is a scandal and we get ourselves out of the fix by saying "since it could have been the latter, we penalize as if it were the latter". Best regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 23 15:02:31 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:02:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] A different infraction In-Reply-To: <0db101c82c3f$f6449270$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <0db101c82c3f$f6449270$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <4746DD77.6030309@ntlworld.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] Perhaps this has already been discussed on BLML, sorry if it has: http://www.pzbs.pl/kmpp/2007/list2007/analizy200711.htm#31 Deal #31, Dealer South, North-South vulnerable. Two not very strong pairs, irregular partnerships. South opens 1H, West overcalls 2S. North asks and East explains 2S as 9 - 11 with 6S. North makes a negative double, East passes, South rebids 3C (clearly a huge underbid but "only 11 points partner") and West rebids his spades - 3S. North doubles, the contract is cold, North - South actually misdefend and let declarer take 10 tricks. North - South call the TD and claim having been demaged because of misinformation. You see that indeed they have been misinformed but there seems to be no connection between the infraction and the result. North - South have damaged themselves through ridiculous bidding (both the 3C bid and North's double are out of this world). Even if you somehow disagree about this assertion about the lack of influence of the MI please assume that this is the case. However, you can see that West received UI from his partner's explanation and his 3S bid might well have been an attempt to "correct" his partner's idea about the strength of the 2S bid. But it looks that either North - South haven't noticed or have no complaints about the use of UI by their opponents. What do you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of L81C6? Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by? If not - what is the difference between these two situations? [nige1] When called to the table, the director should rule on the facts as he establishes them -- not just on the actual complaint. If the director discovers what he judges to be new infractions, he must rule on them. Similarly, the director should rule on an infraction that he accidentally notices, when passing the table. Arguably but much more controversially: time permitting, the director should be on the look out for infractions, constantly and proactively, whether or not any players has drawn his attention to them. In the past directors have disparaged such ideas. Are they really in conflict with the rules (laws + regulations + + ). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 23 15:28:41 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:28:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] A different infraction In-Reply-To: <4746DD77.6030309@ntlworld.com> References: <0db101c82c3f$f6449270$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> <4746DD77.6030309@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4746E399.9020104@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [ > Deal #31, Dealer South, North-South vulnerable. Two not very strong > pairs, irregular partnerships. South opens 1H, West overcalls 2S. > North asks and East explains 2S as 9 - 11 with 6S. North makes a > negative double, East passes, South rebids 3C (clearly a huge > underbid but "only 11 points partner") and West rebids his spades - > 3S. North doubles, the contract is cold, North - South actually > misdefend and let declarer take 10 tricks. > > North - South call the TD and claim having been demaged because of > misinformation. You see that indeed they have been misinformed but > there seems to be no connection between the infraction and the result. > North - South have damaged themselves through ridiculous bidding (both > the 3C bid and North's double are out of this world). Even if you > somehow disagree about this assertion about the lack of influence > of the MI please assume that this is the case. > > However, you can see that West received UI from his partner's > explanation and his 3S bid might well have been an attempt to > "correct" his partner's idea about the strength of the 2S bid. But it > looks that either North - South haven't noticed or have no complaints > about the use of UI by their opponents. > > What do you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of > L81C6? Of course we do. See the word "any". It's rather frequent that you detect unnoticed-till-now infractions. For exemple, you're called because of mistimed questions, but it happens that there was MI and it isn't too late for correction, so you declare the bidding still open. Or worse, you're called for OBOOT but the mis-opener telle you he thought he was in 1st seat on this board - oops, wrong board. Change boards, of course. > Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making > a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by? > It has been discussed before, and many said "you might act". I'd prefer it to be "you have to act". Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Fri Nov 23 16:08:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:08:28 EST Subject: [blml] A different infraction Message-ID: >In a message dated 23/11/2007 14:03:18 GMT Standard Time, >guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: >But it looks that either North - South haven't noticed or have no complaints >about the use of UI by their opponents. >What do you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of >L81C6? Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making >a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by? Another thread on another site seemed clear that an infraction which was not the subject of the original director call but was noticed by the TD, or was noticed by the AC although not the subject of the original TD ruling, should be acted upon by the party discovering it. There seemed to be unanimity in the thread in question that the pair calling the director, or the pair appealing against the TD ruling, could therefore get a worse result than had the TD not been called, or had the pair not appealed. Getting the correct decision was felt by many to be of higher priority and I, for what it is worth, concurred with this view. Interestingly, in the game of cricket, if the third umpire notices, when watching the video replay, that the bowler committed an infraction when delivering the ball he still rules that the batsman was dismissed if, for example, the batsman was caught, even though the third umpire knows that the umpire should have indicated a "no ball". No other sport that I know has this inconsistency. "It's a funny kind of month, October. For the really keen cricket fan, it's when you realise that your wife left you in May." - Denis Norden From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 23 16:35:41 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:35:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <47456E27.4030003@skynet.be> <4745ACA0.6030700@gmx.de><47469B82.6070304@skynet.be> <4746AA45.8080400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c82de6$aaf65ee0$dfd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > I still don't see the difference within the "could have" paradigm. > > Both cases can be analyzed as follows : > > - either the infraction (second revoke / IB) is inadvertent (quite > possible) > - or the infraction was made purposely, in order to gain an advantage > (masking the first revoke / shutting out partner), which is a scandal > > and we get ourselves out of the fix by saying "since it could have been > the latter, we penalize as if it were the latter". > +=+ Or perhaps 'we deal with it as if it were.....' The second infraction, incidentally, may be regarded as the third irregularity since there is a 74B1 breach of etiquette. But in general, yes, and there is little point in further discussion of the subject. The fact is that if, following the infraction, the course of events has followed a logical path the outcome could have been foreseen at the time of the violation by any practised player. ~ G ~ +=+ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Nov 23 20:22:47 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:22:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] A different infraction References: <0db101c82c3f$f6449270$1f271d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <003e01c82e06$3b48d710$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: [blml] A different infraction What do you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of L81C6? Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by? HD: Not only can we cater to another infraction under L81C6, but in fact we must do so. "6. Errors to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Note the phrase "in any manner". It does not matter how the TD becomes aware of an infraction. If a TD becomes aware of it, he must rectify it. Was the bid after the explanation an infraction? That's the harder question. Hirsch From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Nov 24 10:53:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <4745A398.6040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > No John, could have known means "could have known". This man could > not have known. Of course he "could have known" - he *could* have remembered his original hand, he *could* have stopped to think about the tricks played, he *could* have worked out that he had revoked. Because he could know that he had revoked he could know the penalty were it to be discovered. He could also work out that a 2nd revoke in the same suit would work to his advantage. It doesn't matter what he did - only what he might have done. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Fri Nov 23 14:05:38 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:05:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Message-ID: Getting my stuff together for the Germany tournament but going to take a moment to add one comment at this time. Please remember that 64C talks about "insufficient compensation" and not about something perhaps defined as "true equity" when applying it. When the result of applying 64 A, and B gives the non-offenders more than what they would have gotten by now going to Law 12 and applying equity, 64 C does not provide the choice of reducing the score for the non-offenders -- it merely says make sure that they got enough from the application of the law. Otherwise we can quickly drift to the concept that you can't win by anything than superior bidding and play -- a novel idea that makes it so much easier and close to the heart of some professional and expert players never to get a bad result. That's a different game. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:01 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >> And using the word "equity" from the heading of Law 64C when it does not >> appear anywhere in the body of the Law as the point to be arrived at >> boggles >> my mind. So, we've got a lousy heading, and nothing else. Were it not >> there we would not be having this discussion. Headings are not part of >> the >> 1997 Laws, nor are they part of the 2007 Laws. (Please see the >> Introduction). Please read the Law without adding "equity" where it >> doesn't >> exist, and you may quickly see that 64C talks solely about compensation. >> >> (Herman) > I admit to not having read the law before writing all this, relying > solely on memory. I do not think that I have made mistakes though, > apart from using the word equity which is not present in the body of > the law, but certainly in its spirit. > +=+ We need to be careful in our reading of the 2007 Laws. The Introduction no longer gives notice that headings do not constitute part of the laws. Instead it says that a heading never has the effect of limiting the application of any law. 64C does indicate that the Director should ensure that a non- offending pair is sufficiently compensated 'for the damage caused'. If he is not satisfied this is achieved he is to award an adjusted score. The award of an adjusted score is governed by Law 12. In 2007 Law 12B1 the laws establish that damage is to be assessed by comparison with the result that the non-offending side was on course to obtain when the infraction occurred. This transparency of all this is so plain that I fail to imagine what exists to be argued about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ 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/20071123/f79ff80f/attachment.htm From john at asimere.com Sun Nov 25 17:55:30 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:55:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: Message-ID: <002a01c82f83$fd1bfbf0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] >Getting my stuff together for the Germany tournament but going to take a >moment to add one comment at this time. Please remember that 64C talks >about "insufficient compensation" and not about something perhaps defined >as "true equity" when applying it. When the result of applying 64 A, and B >gives the non-offenders more than what they would have gotten by now going >to Law 12 and applying equity, 64 C does not provide the choice of reducing >the score for the non-offenders -- it merely says make sure that they got >enough from the application of the law. Otherwise we can quickly drift to >the concept that you can't win by anything than superior bidding and >play -- a novel idea that makes it so much easier and close to the heart of >some professional and expert players never to get a bad result. That's a >different game. Kojak, How true. Bridge at the higher levels in particular, is a game of unforced error. You make an error, you lose the point. What the error is doesn't matter. Revoke, misbid, careless play - it makes no difference. John >Kojak From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 26 12:16:27 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:16:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <002a01c82f83$fd1bfbf0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002601c8301d$d4115670$7dc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:05 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] > > >>Getting my stuff together for the Germany tournament but going to take a >>moment to add one comment at this time. Please remember that 64C talks >>about "insufficient compensation" and not about something perhaps defined >>as "true equity" when applying it. When the result of applying 64 A, and >>B gives the non-offenders more than what they would have gotten by now >>going to Law 12 and applying equity, 64 C does not provide the choice of >>reducing the score for the non-offenders -- it merely says make sure that >>they got enough from the application of the law. Otherwise we can quickly >>drift to the concept that you can't win by anything than superior bidding >>and play -- a novel idea that makes it so much easier and close to the >>heart of some professional and expert players never to get a bad result. >>That's a different game. > > Kojak, How true. Bridge at the higher levels in particular, is a game of > unforced error. You make an error, you lose the point. What the error is > doesn't matter. Revoke, misbid, careless play - it makes no difference. > John > +=+ And the principle is supported, of course, by Law 12B2. Although the definition of the equity to be sought is inherent in Law 12B1, this law does not in fact use the word. Instead it make a positive statement of the objective of score adjustment whenever it is required and establishes the correct present-day interpretation of 'damage'. The word 'equity' does appear in Law 12C1(c), but its more significant use is in Law 84D. It may be added that the laws always look on 'equity' as something to be sought after; they are not so bold as to say it will necessarily be achieved - once there is damage the Director's intervention aims to restore the balance between the sides but the purity and pleasure of an uncontaminated table result, inclusive of its potential for misjudgement and unforced error, is lost. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 26 13:24:04 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:24:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] In-Reply-To: <002601c8301d$d4115670$7dc9403e@Mildred> References: <002a01c82f83$fd1bfbf0$0701a8c0@john> <002601c8301d$d4115670$7dc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <474ABAE4.4060705@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > +=+ And the principle is supported, of course, by Law 12B2. > Although the definition of the equity to be sought is inherent in Law > 12B1, > this law does not in fact use the word. Instead it make a positive statement > of > the objective of score adjustment whenever it is required and establishes > the > correct present-day interpretation of 'damage'. The word 'equity' does > appear > in Law 12C1(c), but its more significant use is in Law 84D. It may be added > that the laws always look on 'equity' as something to be sought after; they > are > not so bold as to say it will necessarily be achieved - once there is damage > the > Director's intervention aims to restore the balance between the sides but > the > purity and pleasure of an uncontaminated table result, inclusive of its > potential > for misjudgement and unforced error, is lost. > Let's call this the positivistic value of equity - a goal we know we'll never fully achieve but shall nevertheless aim at. This doesn't worry me. Our advantage over positivistic scientists is that we know how to approximate : TFLB says that, when in doubt, the benefit should go to the NOS, and wer're given several methods to ensure that. As for the uncontaminated result, a notion I appreciate, it's inherent to umpire's decisions in all sports that it can't be achieved : who knows whether the forward would have scored hadn't he been brought down ; how many runs the batsman could have garnered, if any, had the ball taken the right direction ; whether a try would have ensued from the offensive without that offside position ? Note that at rugby, the possible compensation from the penalty shot is smaller than the potential gain (penalty trials are rather uncommon), a mechanism which in some way resembles our weighted scores. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 28 01:42:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:42:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure f2f [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Willey: >>...SAYC fragmented into a 1001 different >>approaches as everyone and their brother >>started trying to "improve" things while >>making no effort what-so-ever to preserve >>a clear nomenclature... W.B. Yeats (1865-1939): Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, Nigel Guthrie: >...(Transfers, relays, splinters, fit >jumps, Jacoby 2N, negative, competitive, >responsive, support, and lead directing >doubles and redoubles, Multis, low level >and exclusion RKCB, Lebensohl, 2 way >Drury and on and on and on). > >- but systems also seem to be >*stabilizing*. Not just on-line but f2f >as well. Notice how many players claim to >employ most of the above gadgets... Richard Hills: The Ali-Hills partnership does not employ splinters, Jacoby 2NT, doubles or redoubles which are competitive, responsive or support, Multis, low level RKCB or 2-way Drury. It seems to me that "stabilizing" is in the eye of the beholder. And when the beholder _wants_ "stabilizing" rather than "anarchy" to be true (due to a hobby-horse), then any such eye for stability should be taken with a grain of salt. For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Willey that there is a Darwinian imperative for bidding systems to fragment, but there is nothing new in that - the same thing occurred in the 1990s when I updated and so fragmented my bidding system (with my perplexed partner wrestling with many attempts to remember which of the many varying versions of our bidding system were operative). ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, theia euryphaessa Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Nov 28 02:52:09 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:52:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the 2007 law's definition: "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." Since ordinary Stayman is taken for granted by players generally, it is not artificial by this simple logic: The information ordinary Stayman conveys is entirely taken for granted by players generally, so there is no information left that was removed by the parenthetical phrase, so it conveys none of that special information, so it cannot be artificial. Do I have that right? Seriously, I think I could have done a better job with that definition. The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning---it would have been better to use a clarifying second sentence. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 28 08:57:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:57:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <474D1F6C.1030900@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the 2007 law's definition: "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." Since ordinary Stayman is taken for granted by players generally, it is not artificial by this simple logic: The information ordinary Stayman conveys is entirely taken for granted by players generally, so there is no information left that was removed by the parenthetical phrase, so it conveys none of that special information, so it cannot be artificial. Do I have that right? Seriously, I think I could have done a better job with that definition. The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning---it would have been better to use a clarifying second sentence. [nige1] The WBFLC may address such issues in the 2018 edition of TFLB. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 28 22:24:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:24:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the >2007 Lawbook's definition: "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." [snip] Jerry Fusselman asserted: >The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the parenthetical is exactly as intended. North-South are playing Standard American, South is dealer -> SOUTH NORTH 1D 1H Without the inclusion of the parenthetical, North's 1H response would be artificial, since North conveys forcing-for-one-round information which is other than willingness to play in hearts. Best wishes Richard James Hills, theia euryphaessa Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Nov 28 22:45:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:45:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the > >2007 Lawbook's definition: "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." > > [snip] > > Jerry Fusselman asserted: > > >The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the parenthetical is exactly as intended. > > North-South are playing Standard American, South is dealer -> > > SOUTH NORTH > > 1D 1H > > Without the inclusion of the parenthetical, North's 1H response > would be artificial, since North conveys forcing-for-one-round > information which is other than willingness to play in hearts. > Richard, this is not particularly relevant to my post. We want a definition that works well in all cases. I know you like to write about fallacies, so I will state yours. Your premise is that I suggested that the fix to the definition simply to delete the parenthetical. That's not what I said at all---you might want to reread the parts you snipped. What you have done here is known as the straw-man logical fallacy---a special case of Argumentum ad logicam. Why not address the question about ordinary Stayman? By not addressing it and just using your one example, you commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if a definition works well for one consideration, it may work poorly for others. You merely showed that it works well for one consideration. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 01:22:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:22:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >I know you like to write about fallacies, so I will state yours. [snip] >What you have done here is known as the straw-man logical >fallacy---a special case of Argumentum ad logicam. > >Why not address the question about ordinary Stayman? By not >addressing it and just using your one example, you commit the >fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if a definition works >well for one consideration, it may work poorly for others. You >merely showed that it works well for one consideration. Richard Hills: Okay, 1H promising hearts but also promising one-round-force is not artificial because one-round-force is taken for granted. But even if 2C Simple Stayman is taken for granted (not so in Australia where Extended Stayman is common) it does not promise clubs but rather implies at least one major instead. Ergo, the Definition of "artificial" should be construed to be consistent with -> Law 29C: If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named. Richard Hills: -> so therefore 2C Simple Stayman remains artificial (although Law 40B1(b) empowers the Regulating Authority to rule that 2C Simple Stayman ceases as a Special Partnership Understanding). Best wishes Richard James Hills, theia euryphaessa Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 08:30:40 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:30:40 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711282330t24269232nf6cda84d2f03ee42@mail.gmail.com> [Richard] > > Okay, 1H promising hearts but also promising one-round-force is > not artificial because one-round-force is taken for granted. [Jerry] Suppose that 1H being one-round-force is taken for granted. If I play *not* forcing, does that makes it artificial? I cannot tell from the definition, and I cannot tell what your position is. But this is not really my original issue at all. [Richard] > > But even if 2C Simple Stayman is taken for granted (not so in > Australia where Extended Stayman is common) it does not promise > clubs but rather implies at least one major instead. Ergo, the > Definition of "artificial" should be construed to be consistent > with -> > > Law 29C: > > If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws > 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather > than the denomination named. > > Richard Hills: > > -> so therefore 2C Simple Stayman remains artificial (although > Law 40B1(b) empowers the Regulating Authority to rule that 2C > Simple Stayman ceases as a Special Partnership Understanding). > [Jerry] This time your fallacy is begging the question, petitio principii. (You have mentioned petitio principii probably a dozen times on BLML.) I will show it carefully. The original question is whether ordinary Stayman is artificial under the new laws. Your argument that it is artificial depends on Law 29C, which besides being a reach, *assumes* that the call is artificial. Law 29C: "If a call out of rotation is artificial..." A sentence that starts "If A" is a case of assuming A. You assumed your desired conclusion. You can never use a statement of the form "if A then B" as evidence that A true. This is elementary logic. Besides, in the original post I gave a deductive argument that it is not artificial under the new definition. I am gaining confidence that my argument was correct in all details. However, perhaps you, or someone else, can do me the honor of looking at it and trying to name a step that seems inadequate. Jerry Fusselman From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 09:14:18 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:14:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711282330t24269232nf6cda84d2f03ee42@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711282330t24269232nf6cda84d2f03ee42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071129031418.0fac6028@linuxbox> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:30:40 -0600 "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > [Richard] > > > > Okay, 1H promising hearts but also promising one-round-force is > > not artificial because one-round-force is taken for granted. > > [Jerry] > Suppose that 1H being one-round-force is taken for granted. If I play > *not* forcing, does that makes it artificial? I cannot tell from the > definition, and I cannot tell what your position is. But this is not > really my original issue at all. > Speaking as someone who does play 1D-1H (and 1D-1S for that matter) as natural but NOT forcing, I'd be interested to hear a definitive answer to Jerry's question as above. Yes, I know the non-forcing calls are unexpected, and we alert them for that reason, but are they artificial? They show 0-10 HCP with 4+ cards in the suit, and we play that contract (oppos permitting) most of the time. And if not artificial now, does it make them artificial when they can be made with a (much) longer minor? Brian. -- From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 29 19:45:31 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:45:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the 2007 law's definition: "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." Since ordinary Stayman is taken for granted by players generally, it is not artificial by this simple logic: The information ordinary Stayman conveys is entirely taken for granted by players generally, so there is no information left that was removed by the parenthetical phrase, so it conveys none of that special information, so it cannot be artificial. Do I have that right? Seriously, I think I could have done a better job with that definition. The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning---it would have been better to use a clarifying second sentence. [nige1] I tried to define "Natural", "Artificial", and "Conventional" in an article for a magazine. I found it hard. I concluded that in most jurisductions, "Natural" seems to mean "whatever is popular locally", however bizarre. For example, in America and France, it is considered "Natural to open 1D with S:AKxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:Qx. In the UK, I've seen argued in print, that Cue-bids, Trial-bids, and Fit jumps are "Natural". The long term solution is obvious: Forget such controversies: As part of a law simplification, define a *Standard System* and mandate the disclosure of departures from it. In the short term, however, I agree with Jerry that the law book has redefined "Artificial" in a counter-intuitive way. But I don't think we should object to that, per se. I believe that the WBFLC is free to define a technical term in any way that it finds convenient :) Look at what they've done to the word "Equity" :( What is more disconcerting is that the definition of "Artificial" is ambiguous and hard to understand. However if the WBFLC aim is ever more sophistication, complexity and subjectivity, then such outcomes seem unavoidable. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 20:06:37 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:06:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711291106y775ce334te775f603d1519373@mail.gmail.com> [nige1] I tried to define "Natural", "Artificial", and "Conventional" in an article for a magazine. I found it hard. I concluded that in most jurisductions, "Natural" seems to mean "whatever is popular locally", however bizarre. [Jerry] Your conclusion is surely a bit of an oversimplification. Ordinary Stayman is popular locally, but your definition of natural would not accept ordinary Stayman, would it? What definitions did you come up with? To me, a definition of artificial that excludes ordinary Stayman is inadequate. And I think that is what we have in the 2007 laws. -Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 29 21:01:47 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:01:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711291106y775ce334te775f603d1519373@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0711291106y775ce334te775f603d1519373@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <474F1AAB.6070803@ntlworld.com> [nige1] I tried to define "Natural", "Artificial", and "Conventional" in an article for a magazine. I found it hard. I concluded that in most jurisductions, "Natural" seems to mean "whatever is popular locally", however bizarre. [Jerry] Your conclusion is surely a bit of an oversimplification. Ordinary Stayman is popular locally, but your definition of natural would not accept ordinary Stayman, would it? What definitions did you come up with? To me, a definition of artificial that excludes ordinary Stayman is inadequate. And I think that is what we have in the 2007 laws. [nige1] In essence, I define: "Natural" call as "intending to express tolerance for play in the last bid strain". "Artificial" as "the complement of 'Natural'". "Conventional" as "with a key meaning that you may not appreciate without agreement". Thus, for me, all bids are "Natural" or "Artificial". The two sets are disjoint. "Conventional" bids overlap both. Hence, under my definition, Stayman is not "Natural" but "Conventional" and "Artificial". I accept, however, that all attempts at such definitions (including mine) are futile. I feel that the WBFLC are free to define a technical legal term in any way that they want even if it subverts the meaning of an innocent and useful ordinary word in the process. My concern is not that the NLFB definition reclassifies "Stayman" as "Natural". It is that the new definition of "Natural" seems ambiguous. Apparently, different bright BLMLers interpret it in different ways. Worse: judging by past experience, this ambiguity will not be corrected, immediately, in place, in NFLB. Instead, the mess will fester for years. Eventually the WBFLC may bury an opaque "clarification" in arcane minutes. Ordinary players, who are expected to abide by the new laws, will have to wait up to a decade to be informed what the laws mean. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Nov 29 22:12:33 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:12:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> [JF] > >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the > >2007 Lawbook's definition: "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." [DALB] Since ordinary Stayman (like ordinary Blackwood) does not convey any information at all, it is certainly not artificial per the definition in the 2007 Laws. Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less nonsensical. David Burn London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 22:45:40 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:40 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> [JF] > >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the > >2007 Lawbook's definition: "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." [DALB] Since ordinary Stayman (like ordinary Blackwood) does not convey any information at all, it is certainly not artificial per the definition in the 2007 Laws. Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less nonsensical. [JF] Of course ordinary Stayman conveys information. For example: You don't want to attempt to play in 1NT. You are far less likely to have a five-card major. You don't want to transfer to a minor. You are not sure that you want to play in 3NT. If it really is *ordinary* Stayman, then you probably have at least one four-card major. About half of the hands that you might have had you just denied having. If that's not information, then someone screwed up the definition of information. Any call that removes (or makes less likely) some the hypothetical hands that were previously consistent with your part of the auction conveys information by definition. I expect this to be obvious to any decent mathematician, and most bridge players. I would have thought it obvious to you. Are you using the word "information" in some special way? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 23:00:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:00:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711282330t24269232nf6cda84d2f03ee42@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >This time your fallacy is begging the question, petitio principii. >(You have mentioned petitio principii probably a dozen times on >BLML.) Richard Hills: Not "probably"; rather "at least". ;-) Jerry Fusselman: >I will show it carefully. The original question is whether >ordinary Stayman is artificial under the new laws. Your argument >that it is artificial depends on Law 29C, which besides being a >reach, *assumes* that the call is artificial. Law 29C: "If a >call out of rotation is artificial..." Richard Hills: I was over-succinct in my previous posting - I was not arguing petititio principii via the preamble of Law 29C, my argument was based on the core of Law 29C: "...apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named." 2C ordinary Stayman names clubs, but it does not _specify_ that the Staymaner by partnership agreement promises that a club suit is held in their hand. Best wishes Richard James Hills, theia euryphaessa Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 30 00:10:03 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:10:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:45 PM Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [JF] > >> >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the >> >2007 Lawbook's definition: "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." > > [DALB] > > Since ordinary Stayman (like ordinary Blackwood) does not convey any > information at all, it is certainly not artificial per the definition in > the > 2007 Laws. Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less > nonsensical. > > [JF] > > Of course ordinary Stayman conveys information. For example: You > don't want to attempt to play in 1NT. You are far less likely to have > a five-card major. You don't want to transfer to a minor. You are > not sure that you want to play in 3NT. If it really is *ordinary* > Stayman, then you probably have at least one four-card major. > > About half of the hands that you might have had you just denied > having. If that's not information, then someone screwed up the > definition of information. ************ Here it comes again, the negative inference. Every single call has negative inferences: the inference comes from the failure to make some *other* bid or call. The degree to which negative inference is "positive information" has, AFAIK, not been defined. Nor where the line should be drawn in alert regulations, to determine when negative inference becomes strong enough to require an alert. But that is a separate issue from the definitions in the Law, or is it? I will go back to the lurker shadows and await comments from those who are more knowledgeable. Raija ************ > Any call that removes (or makes less likely) some the hypothetical > hands that were previously consistent with your part of the auction > conveys information by definition. I expect this to be obvious to any > decent mathematician, and most bridge players. I would have thought > it obvious to you. > > Are you using the word "information" in some special way? > > Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 30 00:58:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:58:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: >>>Since ordinary Stayman (like ordinary Blackwood) >>>does not convey any information at all, [snip] Jerry Fusselman: >>Of course ordinary Stayman conveys information. >>For example: [snip] Raija: >Here it comes again, the negative inference. [snip] >I will go back to the lurker shadows and await >comments from those who are more knowledgeable. Richard Hills: The point of David Burn's comment was that Stayman and Blackwood are relays, asking for information. As one who is knowledgeable in relay systems, having played variants of Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) for two decades, I would argue that both David and Jerry are correct. A relay in and of itself provides no information. But a partnership quickly establishes explicit or implicit agreements about the negative inferences of the use (or the non-use) of a relay. So when as declarer I describe the meaning of my game-force relay auction to the defenders, I am particular careful to ensure that a description of any negative inferences is included. For example, sometimes there is a strong negative inference that the relaying declarer has exactly three trumps, information which may assist the defence in finding the killing opening lead of a trump. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC 02 6223 8439 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Nov 30 01:13:57 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:13:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com> [Raija] Here it comes again, the negative inference. Every single call has negative inferences: the inference comes from the failure to make some *other* bid or call. The degree to which negative inference is "positive information" has, AFAIK, not been defined. Nor where the line should be drawn in alert regulations, to determine when negative inference becomes strong enough to require an alert. But that is a separate issue from the definitions in the Law, or is it? I will go back to the lurker shadows and await comments from those who are more knowledgeable. [nige1] I claim no special knowedge :( but that does not prevent me from venturing a view :) All calls, "Natural" and "Artificial", convey information. "Artificial" calls convey information other than tolerance for play in the suit named. As Richard Hills has explained, even Relays convey information because they deny suitable hands for alternative actions. All "Artificial" calls are "Conventional". Regulations usually mandate disclosure of the meaning of most "Conventional" calls, even when they convey only negative inferences. Normal Stayman is more than an an artificial relay, however. Stayman is usually promissory, showing: 4 cards in a major; *or* weak long clubs; *or* at least 3 cards in each major and 4+ diamonds ("Garbage" Stayman - a kind of scramble). Playing with a strange partner, after 1N-2C; -2S-3N; I would bid 4H with 44 in the majors. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 30 01:41:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:41:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071129031418.0fac6028@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills >>>Okay, 1H promising hearts but also promising one-round-force is >>>not artificial because one-round-force is taken for granted. Jerry Fusselman: >>Suppose that 1H being one-round-force is taken for granted. If >>I play *not* forcing, does that makes it artificial? I cannot >>tell from the definition, and I cannot tell what your position >>is. But this is not really my original issue at all. Brian Meadows: >Speaking as someone who does play 1D-1H (and 1D-1S for that >matter) as natural but NOT forcing, I'd be interested to hear a >definitive answer to Jerry's question as above. Yes, I know the >non-forcing calls are unexpected, and we alert them for that >reason, but are they artificial? They show 0-10 HCP with 4+ cards >in the suit, and we play that contract (oppos permitting) most of >the time. And if not artificial now, does it make them artificial >when they can be made with a (much) longer minor? David Burn: [snip] >Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less >nonsensical. * * * 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. * * * Richard Hills: Not nonsensical, but definitely involuted. The bracketed phrase had to be included since otherwise a Standard American 15-17 1NT was by definition artificial. 1D-1H, and 1D-1S, as natural but NOT forcing are non-artificial calls if one parses the definition correctly, since they promise "willingness to play" in the denomination. However, Brian's Regulating Authority may rule that - despite the 1H and 1S responses being non-artificial - they are Special Partnership Understandings. Law 40B1(a): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings". 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. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 3 Aqua Building, DIAC 02 6223 8439 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 30 01:45:26 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:45:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com><000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> <474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Raija] > Here it comes again, the negative inference. Every single call has > negative inferences: the inference comes from the failure to make some > *other* bid or call. The degree to which negative inference is > "positive information" has, AFAIK, not been defined. Nor where the > line should be drawn in alert regulations, to determine when negative > inference becomes strong enough to require an alert. But that is a > separate issue from the definitions in the Law, or is it? > > I will go back to the lurker shadows and await comments from those who > are more knowledgeable. > > [nige1] > I claim no special knowedge :( but that does not prevent me from > venturing a view :) > > All calls, "Natural" and "Artificial", convey information. > "Artificial" calls convey information other than tolerance for play in > the suit named. As Richard Hills has explained, even Relays convey > information because they deny suitable hands for alternative actions. > All "Artificial" calls are "Conventional". > > Regulations usually mandate disclosure of the meaning of most > "Conventional" calls, even when they convey only negative inferences. > > Normal Stayman is more than an an artificial relay, however. Stayman > is usually promissory, showing: 4 cards in a major; *or* weak long > clubs; *or* at least 3 cards in each major and 4+ diamonds ("Garbage" > Stayman - a kind of scramble). Playing with a strange partner, after > 1N-2C; -2S-3N; I would bid 4H > with 44 in the majors. While you do that, I will respond 2H with 4-4 majors and expect any stranger to do the same. I also do not think Stayman is necessarily a promissory convention but of course the question arises *why ask about a major if one is not interested in a major*. Whatever, one sometimes asks anyway, particularly if one plays a method where 2NT bid is reserved for other purposes. What is "normal" one person might be "not normal" to another. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 30 04:51:18 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:51:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com><000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361><474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com> <000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000701c83304$454d03a0$6501a8c0@MARVIN> From: "raija" >I also do not think Stayman is necessarily a promissory > convention but of course the question arises *why ask about a major if one > is not interested in a major*. To make the opening leader think you were interested in a major. Recommended by Stayman himself in his *High Road to Winning Bridge.* Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 06:54:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:54:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c83304$454d03a0$6501a8c0@MARVIN> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> <474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com> <000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> <000701c83304$454d03a0$6501a8c0@MARVIN> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711292154q3613b0cr3a689c92036a5a82@mail.gmail.com> [Raija] > >I also do not think Stayman is necessarily a promissory > > convention but of course the question arises *why ask about a major if one > > is not interested in a major*. [Marv] > To make the opening leader think you were interested in a major. Recommended > by Stayman himself in his *High Road to Winning Bridge.* [Jerry] The problem is that after 1N-2C-2H-3N, often 4S is next because Opener was 4-4 in the majors. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 30 11:21:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:21:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@mail.gmail.com> <474F08CB.8020708@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <474FE424.8090502@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? I ask because of the 2007 > law's definition: "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." > > Since ordinary Stayman is taken for granted by players generally, it > is not artificial by this simple logic: The information ordinary > Stayman conveys is entirely taken for granted by players generally, so > there is no information left that was removed by the parenthetical > phrase, so it conveys none of that special information, so it cannot > be artificial. > > For example, in America and France, it is considered "Natural to open > 1D with S:AKxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:Qx. In Belgium, both 1C and 1D would be considered natural here. (BTW, you should substract one King, or 1D would be considered as artificial. As my partner, who often plays in Paris, says : "weak NTs verge on being a HUM here". There remains one problem in my mind : when a bid contains *less* information than exists in the "classical-for-this-sphere" meaning, does it make it artificial ? Say you play a 1/1 is *not* forcing, for example. Or a relay 2C asking for majors but *not* promising any. Or a weak 2-bid *not* denying 4 cards in the other major. etc. Best regards Alain > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Nov 30 12:42:23 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:42:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> [JF] Are you using the word "information" in some special way? [DALB] No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using the term in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information theory". I am using the term in the sense in which it is used in English: that is, if North has provided South with some information about North's hand, then South will be able to describe some specific feature of North's hand ("North has more than 5 hcp", or "North has fewer than four spades"). David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 30 13:17:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:17:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com><2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> Message-ID: <002b01c8334a$ff37c2a0$74d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [JF] > > Are you using the word "information" in some special way? > > [DALB] > > No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using the term > in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information theory". I am > using the term in the sense in which it is used in English: that is, if > North has provided South with some information about North's hand, then > South will be able to describe some specific feature of North's hand > ("North > has more than 5 hcp", or "North has fewer than four spades"). > +=+ David, of course, always introduces an element of erudition into any discussion, however esoteric. Equally true, inclusion of 'artificial call' in the Definitions could give it a meaning for bridge law that is not necessarily what it would have if given its dictionary meaning. So, unusually and inadvertently as it may be, we may have been creative. It hardly matters since any Regulating Authority can use its Law 40B power to regulate the use of Stayman. Ipso facto, any understanding regulated is designated a special partnership understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 30 13:48:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:48:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> Message-ID: <4750068E.7010200@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > Are you using the word "information" in some special way? > > [DALB] > > No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using the term > in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information theory". I am > using the term in the sense in which it is used in English: that is, if > North has provided South with some information about North's hand, then > South will be able to describe some specific feature of North's hand ("North > has more than 5 hcp", or "North has fewer than four spades"). > No real difference, David. With Stayman, South can also say "North has a hand with which he does not want to play 1NT and he wishes to know my majors". Slightly different kind of information, but information nevertheless, both in information theory and in plain english. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Nov 30 15:56:24 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:56:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <4750068E.7010200@skynet.be> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <4750068E.7010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c83361$2dc5c840$895158c0$@com> [HdW] With Stayman, South can also say "North has a hand with which he does not want to play 1NT and he wishes to know my majors". Slightly different kind of information, but information nevertheless, both in information theory and in plain english. [DALB] Not really. The former adds almost nothing to South's knowledge of North's hand; the latter may not even be true. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 30 16:33:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <000401c83361$2dc5c840$895158c0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <4750068E.7010200@skynet.be> <000401c83361$2dc5c840$895158c0$@com> Message-ID: <47502D40.1090201@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > With Stayman, South can also say "North has a hand with which he does > not want to play 1NT and he wishes to know my majors". Slightly > different kind of information, but information nevertheless, both in > information theory and in plain english. > > [DALB] > > Not really. The former adds almost nothing to South's knowledge of North's > hand; the latter may not even be true. > We are talking about information, not about "useful information". The former is "unuseful" information, but nevertheless information. When the latter is true, that too is information. I'm sure you knew what I meant - don't disagree simply to disagree, David, it does not suit you. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 30 17:41:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:41:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361> <474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com> <000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <35824360-4B0F-4D5F-829F-67D5A35F8132@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:45 PM, raija wrote: > I also do not think Stayman is necessarily a promissory > convention but of course the question arises *why ask about a major > if one > is not interested in a major*. Because one has no other way to get where one wants to go. With some partners, I play that in the sequence 1NT-2C-2X-2NT responder does not necessarily have a four card major, because 1NT-2NT is a transfer to diamonds. With some partners, I play that in the sequence 1NT-2C-2X-3C/3D, responder is making a slam try in the minor, and may not have a major, because we have no other reasonable way to show that hand type, 1NT-3minor being natural and invitational, or with some partners, two suited in the minors. Some folks may think some or all of these agreements vary from "not optimal" to insane, but that's not the point. The language of bidding has a limited vocabulary, and sometimes we have to make some calls do more than one job. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 30 17:43:43 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:42 AM, David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > Are you using the word "information" in some special way? > > [DALB] > > No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using > the term > in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information > theory". I am > using the term in the sense in which it is used in English: that > is, if > North has provided South with some information about North's hand, > then > South will be able to describe some specific feature of North's > hand ("North > has more than 5 hcp", or "North has fewer than four spades"). Seems to me David is right here. 2C does not in itself convey any specific information about responder's hand. It is his rebid that may do that. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 30 18:02:04 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:02:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com><2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com><000701c832dc$f9dccc10$08065e47@DFYXB361><474F55C5.9060909@ntlworld.com><000501c832ea$4d2f7130$08065e47@DFYXB361> <35824360-4B0F-4D5F-829F-67D5A35F8132@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c83372$bbde3750$415c5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:45 PM, raija wrote: > >> I also do not think Stayman is necessarily a promissory >> convention but of course the question arises *why ask about a major >> if one >> is not interested in a major*. > > Because one has no other way to get where one wants to go. Right. There are hand types in several methods where the only way is through Stayman. I thought my post revealed that I understand that. Sorry if it came out as if I needed an answer or an explanation. But thank you. Raija From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Nov 30 17:56:03 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:56:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal Message-ID: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> What is your ruling? K73 32 KJ742 J82 J6 AT9542 A9 84 QT6 A3 QT6543 K97 Q8 KQJT765 985 A North/all W N E S P 1S 2H P P*) 2S 3H 3S P P 4H X P P P *) Break in tempo 4H= 790 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071130/a9ef34a8/attachment-0001.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 19:47:18 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:47:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> [Torsten ?strand] > W N E S > P 1S 2H > P P*) 2S 3H > 3S P P 4H > X P P P > *) Break in tempo Was the tempo too fast or too slow? Probably too slow. Why has "break in tempo" become synonymous with "slow"? "Fast" can also give UI, such as the fast penalty double that is so less likely to be pulled than the slow one. Oh well, I just wish we all would stop using "break in tempo" this way. It makes it sound like only a slow can ever convey UI. I am certainly not complaining about Torsten's post, which is probably quite clear to anyone but a pedant like me. Suppose the tempo was too fast. I would praise South for bending over backwards not to use his UI. (I assume we are not in a situation where North used his knowledge of South's ethical behaviour to convey that he had useful values.) If the tempo was too slow, it seems clear to me that South made blatant use of that UI. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 30 19:52:05 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:52:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Was the tempo too fast or too slow? I agree with Jerry in one respect, at least. It is not possible to answer Torsten's question without knowing the nature of the BIT. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 30 19:57:07 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:57:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> Message-ID: <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> [JF] Are you using the word "information" in some special way? [DALB] No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using the term in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information theory". I am using the term in the sense in which it is used in English: that is, if North has provided South with some information about North's hand, then South will be able to describe some specific feature of North's hand ("North has more than 5 hcp", or "North has fewer than four spades"). [nige1] According to *common-sense*, I feel that negative inferences are "information". What is important to directors, however, is what *NFLB* means by the word "information". In NFLB, "negative inferences" seem to be information. A simple example: if David Burn attempts to reply 2C (Stayman) to his partner's 1N opener, before his RHO has called, a director may rule that David's partner is in receipt of unauthorised *information*, in spite of David's protests that Stayman conveys no information whatever. From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Nov 30 20:50:47 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:50:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <021801c8338a$4d296100$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Sorry, too slow. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and apeal [Torsten ?strand] > W N E S > P 1S 2H > P P*) 2S 3H > 3S P P 4H > X P P P > *) Break in tempo Was the tempo too fast or too slow? Probably too slow. Why has "break in tempo" become synonymous with "slow"? "Fast" can also give UI, such as the fast penalty double that is so less likely to be pulled than the slow one. Oh well, I just wish we all would stop using "break in tempo" this way. It makes it sound like only a slow can ever convey UI. I am certainly not complaining about Torsten's post, which is probably quite clear to anyone but a pedant like me. Suppose the tempo was too fast. I would praise South for bending over backwards not to use his UI. (I assume we are not in a situation where North used his knowledge of South's ethical behaviour to convey that he had useful values.) If the tempo was too slow, it seems clear to me that South made blatant use of that UI. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Nov 30 20:53:27 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:53:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <021c01c8338a$acedfb00$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Should the double bee free of charge? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and apeal [Torsten ?strand] > W N E S > P 1S 2H > P P*) 2S 3H > 3S P P 4H > X P P P > *) Break in tempo Was the tempo too fast or too slow? Probably too slow. Why has "break in tempo" become synonymous with "slow"? "Fast" can also give UI, such as the fast penalty double that is so less likely to be pulled than the slow one. Oh well, I just wish we all would stop using "break in tempo" this way. It makes it sound like only a slow can ever convey UI. I am certainly not complaining about Torsten's post, which is probably quite clear to anyone but a pedant like me. Suppose the tempo was too fast. I would praise South for bending over backwards not to use his UI. (I assume we are not in a situation where North used his knowledge of South's ethical behaviour to convey that he had useful values.) If the tempo was too slow, it seems clear to me that South made blatant use of that UI. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 30 21:08:04 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:08:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <021c01c8338a$acedfb00$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> <021c01c8338a$acedfb00$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <008101c8338c$b7b83580$2728a080$@nl> I do not think the double is crazy. Almost anyone would get an itchy trigger finger after this bidding, with or without BIT. So I would just rule 2S+1 or so(did not analyze it thoroughly yet) Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Torsten ?strand Sent: vrijdag 30 november 2007 20:53 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Double and apeal Should the double bee free of charge? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and apeal [Torsten ?strand] > W N E S > P 1S 2H > P P*) 2S 3H > 3S P P 4H > X P P P > *) Break in tempo Was the tempo too fast or too slow? Probably too slow. Why has "break in tempo" become synonymous with "slow"? "Fast" can also give UI, such as the fast penalty double that is so less likely to be pulled than the slow one. Oh well, I just wish we all would stop using "break in tempo" this way. It makes it sound like only a slow can ever convey UI. I am certainly not complaining about Torsten's post, which is probably quite clear to anyone but a pedant like me. Suppose the tempo was too fast. I would praise South for bending over backwards not to use his UI. (I assume we are not in a situation where North used his knowledge of South's ethical behaviour to convey that he had useful values.) If the tempo was too slow, it seems clear to me that South made blatant use of that UI. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 21:08:34 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:08:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <021c01c8338a$acedfb00$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <2b1e598b0711301047t2a5451c2ifce7e3a31e1e2ca2@mail.gmail.com> <021c01c8338a$acedfb00$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711301208h79b76eads75845e01dc8afefd@mail.gmail.com> [Torsten ?strand] > Should the double bee free of charge? I think so. For example, if South had had the DK like you would probably expect from his bidding, NS would go down. Besides, it is hard to imagine any good result coming in matchpoints (Please tell us if it is matchpoints or not) without the double. South's bidding sounds like either overbidding or a really big hand giving his partner nothing and making the declarer play difficult. In either case, double seems fine to me. I don't think West is required to pick up the same information that is unauthorized for South. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 30 21:18:25 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:18:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <47507011.3070103@ntlworld.com> [Torsten ?strand] What is your ruling? .................. S: K 7 3 North deals ...... H: 3 2 Both vul ......... D: K J 7 4 2 .................. C: J 8 2 S: J 6 .......................... S: A T 9 5 4 2 H: A 9 .......................... H: 8 4 D: Q T 6 ........................ D: A 3 C: Q T 6 5 4 3 .................. C: K 9 7 .................. S: Q 8 .................. H: K Q J T 7 6 5 .................. D: 9 8 5 .................. C: A _W _N _E _S .. _P 1S 2H _P _P*2S 3H (*Break in tempo) 3S _P _P 4H _X AP 4H= 790 [nige1] Assuming that ... (1) North hesitated after South bid 2H and (2) Torsten has told us all relevant facts I think ... [A] North's hesitation over South's 2H is likely to convey the information that he holds useful high cards. [B] For South, this information made 4H more attractive than other logical alternatives like Pass. [C] South's 4H bid damaged EW. [D] Having raised with lots of points but only a doubleton spade, West's double of 4H was logical, rather than "wild and gambling". [E] Without the alleged infraction, a likely result for EW is 3S= and, IMO, that is how the director should rule. [F] If South is an experienced player, the Director may consider the imposition of a penalty. [G] A modern a director can express the score ruling as 100% of 3S= 0% of 3SX= 0% of 3SXX= 0% of 3S-1 0% of 4HX= 0% of 4H= etc ... etc ... etc ... From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 30 23:37:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:37:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <000801c833a1$9bf7d200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of Torsten ?strand What is your ruling? ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? K73 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 32 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? KJ742??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? J82 ? J6??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? AT9542 A9??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 84 QT6??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??A3 QT6543??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? K97 ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Q8 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? KQJT765 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 985???????????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? A ? North/all ? W??? ??? ??? N??? ??? ??? E??? ??? ??? S ??? ??? ??? ??? P??? ??? ??? 1S??? ??? ???2H P??? ??? ??? ??P*)??? ??? ??2S??? ??? ???3H 3S??? ??? ??? P??? ??? ??? P??? ??? ??? ?4H X??? ??? ??? ??P??? ??? ??? P??? ??? ??? ???P *) Break in tempo ? ? 4H= 790? South with 7 playing tricks is IMO fully justified in bidding 3H but not 4H. I would rule 3S E, and I believe: Down one. (Can East avoid two losers in spades for a total of five losers?) Regards Sven????????????