From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 00:03:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:03:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] Double and apeal In-Reply-To: <000801c833a1$9bf7d200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <00e601c83371$e773b4e0$1276e951@home4paplwv76s> <000801c833a1$9bf7d200$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0711301503t6fc1d77cja837cd264d3e05a0@mail.gmail.com> [Sven] > 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?) "Fully justified" is not exactly the right standard. P seems an LA to 3H to me, though I would like to see their CC to be sure. For example, if they play sound preempts, I am afraid that pass is a clear LA under their methods. Going down 200 or 500 is not appealing after a nonfit sequence where they have no aspirations of game. It's okay to open 3H, but not to slowly get there on a nonfit, nongame sequence. Actually, I feel few, if any, CC's would convince me that pass in no LA to 3H. Slowly arriving at a preemptive level on a nonfit, nongame sequence is so dangerous. If playing IMPs (We still don't know whether it is IMPs or matchpoints), pass is even clearer as an LA. Jerry Fusselman From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Dec 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 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 Sat Dec 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for November 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 43 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 34 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 30 hermandw (at) skynet.be 30 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 24 svenpran (at) online.no 23 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 18 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 Gampas (at) aol.com 16 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 14 swillner (at) nhcc.net 14 geller (at) nifty.com 13 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 12 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 11 john (at) asimere.com 9 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 9 schoderb (at) msn.com 8 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 7 mustikka (at) charter.net 7 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 6 twm (at) cix.co.uk 6 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 5 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 4 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 2 ken.deri31 (at) ntlworld.com 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 schuster (at) eduhi.at 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 adam (at) irvine.com 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 1 13:56:07 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:56:07 EST Subject: [blml] Double and appeal Message-ID: In a message dated 30/11/2007 20:18:59 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [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. If South is an experienced player, I think the Director should apply a PP of double the standard one. And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 1 15:21:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > .................. 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 ................ > And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two losers in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 1 16:39:40 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:39:40 EST Subject: [blml] Double and appeal Message-ID: In a message dated 01/12/2007 14:21:44 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: > And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two losers in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? Yes, I agree. It looks easy to switch to a diamond in time. As the 3H bid seems fine, I would therefore adjust to 3S-1. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 1 22:12:00 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:12:00 -0000 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><000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007801c8345f$3090e9c0$f0cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:57 PM 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, < +=+ I am inclined to wonder how the phrase "about North's hand" has come to be inserted in this sentence. Does it imply that the sense of 'information' in the laws is in some way directed to information about North's hand? Where does such a suggestion arise? I do see in 2007 Law 16B1 a reference to "information that may suggest a call or play". I do not see a mention of information about the content of any hand and it seems to me that information which 'may suggest a call or play' might, or again might not, reflect something about North's holding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 2 01:50:20 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:50:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. [Sven Pran] Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two losers in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? [nige1] Would Torsten please tell us how many tricks were made in spade contracts at other tables? (Assuming that the competition was for pairs or multiple teams) I realise that a director would be burnt as a heretic for such a suggestion. -- "The context is never exactly the same at any 2 tables" --- but I feel this would provide a basic "sanity" test for Paul's and my theories. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 2 02:11:45 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 01:11:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artifical? In-Reply-To: <007801c8345f$3090e9c0$f0cd403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com><000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> <007801c8345f$3090e9c0$f0cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c83480$4ec32810$ec497830$@com> [GE] I am inclined to wonder how the phrase "about North's hand" has come to be inserted in this sentence. Does it imply that the sense of 'information' in the laws is in some way directed to information about North's hand? Where does such a suggestion arise? [DALB] I have always presumed that the laws prohibit communication between partners other than by means of legal calls or plays, but that this prohibition is intended only to prevent (say) North from communicating anything to South about North's hand (or anything else that might influence South's bridge decisions) other than by means of legal calls or plays. I would have no difficulty, for example, with an auction along the following lines: North: "Hello, my dear chap. How's the wife? 1NT." East: "Pass." South: "Very well, thanks. 2C." Now, if it were suggested that "How's the wife?" showed a maximum, or that "Very well, thanks" showed at least an invitational hand, then the auction could well attract the attention of the judiciary. A prima facie case might arise if South were, for example, either a bachelor or a widower. But otherwise, one assumes that "information" in the context of the laws of bridge relates only to relevant information that might be conveyed in the course of a hand of bridge. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 2 02:31:51 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 01:31:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c83483$1d7f47e0$587dd7a0$@com> [Paul Lamford] And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. [DALB] Someone (it may have been Sven) suggested that no "normal" defence would fail to take five tricks against spades. Well, a heart lead will beat 3S, but no other lead will. It is entirely possible that South at the table would start with the ace of clubs, hoping later to put North in and get a club ruff - after that, any half-way competent declarer will make nine tricks in spades. How probable it is that South would lead the ace of clubs is left as an exercise for the reader. It is obvious, though, that Sven (a highly competent director) has completely overlooked even the possibility. That is why bridge judgements should be left to bridge players and not tournament directors. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Sun Dec 2 11:55:11 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:55:11 EST Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artifical? Message-ID: In a message dated 02/12/2007 01:10:07 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: [DALB] I have always presumed that the laws prohibit communication between partners other than by means of legal calls or plays ... [Lamford] I had presumed this only applies before the cards have been removed from the wallet. If not, then I must confess to an illegal coded agreement I had with a former partner, where the question "Would you like a drink?" meant "How good is this pair that has just arrived at our table?", and the reply "Yes, a pint of lager, please." meant "Dead from the neck up." From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sun Dec 2 14:43:03 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:43:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008501c834e9$44839ec0$419442d5@home4paplwv76s> 2 4H = 1 4Hx = 1 4H -1 2 3H = 1 3H +1 1 4S -1 1 3S -2 1 3S = ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and appeal > [Paul Lamford] > And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. > > [Sven Pran] > Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two > losers in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? > > [nige1] > Would Torsten please tell us how many tricks were made in spade > contracts at other tables? (Assuming that the competition was for > pairs or multiple teams) > > I realise that a director would be burnt as a heretic for such a > suggestion. -- "The context is never exactly the same at any 2 tables" > --- but I feel this would provide a basic "sanity" test for Paul's and > my theories. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sun Dec 2 14:43:31 2007 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:43:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008901c834e9$539c5dc0$419442d5@home4paplwv76s> Playing IMP.s ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and appeal > [Paul Lamford] > And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. > > [Sven Pran] > Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two > losers in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? > > [nige1] > Would Torsten please tell us how many tricks were made in spade > contracts at other tables? (Assuming that the competition was for > pairs or multiple teams) > > I realise that a director would be burnt as a heretic for such a > suggestion. -- "The context is never exactly the same at any 2 tables" > --- but I feel this would provide a basic "sanity" test for Paul's and > my theories. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 2 15:06:05 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:06:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <008501c834e9$44839ec0$419442d5@home4paplwv76s> References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> <008501c834e9$44839ec0$419442d5@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <4752BBCD.1090303@ntlworld.com> [Torsten ?strand] 2 4H = 1 4Hx = 1 4H -1 2 3H = 1 3H +1 1 4S -1 1 3S -2 1 3S = Playing IMPS [nige1] Thank you Torsten. Not particularly conclusive but these results demonstrate that (in practice rather than theory) 9 tricks in spades is a possibility. From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Dec 2 15:22:28 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:22:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long] References: <000c01c82c41$3ff5aa20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47443BBB.5060206@skynet.be><47454A65.6000205@skynet.be> <002201c82d29$26300750$3ac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <00d801c834f6$ccd6af80$b2493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > > 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. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > In the Netherlands: shoes before you have new ones. Ben From Gampas at aol.com Sun Dec 2 18:14:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:14:47 EST Subject: [blml] Double and appeal Message-ID: In a message dated 02/12/2007 14:06:14 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [Torsten ?strand] 2 4H = 1 4Hx = 1 4H -1 2 3H = 1 3H +1 1 4S -1 1 3S -2 1 3S = Playing IMPS [nige1] Thank you Torsten. Not particularly conclusive but these results demonstrate that (in practice rather than theory) 9 tricks in spades is a possibility. [Lamford] Yes, it would appear that the correct adjustment should be to a weighted score, 67% of 3S = and 33% of 3S -1 (I think we always reject 3S - 2, as the declarer can make 8 tricks on normal play). From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 2 23:59:06 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:59:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <475338BA.6040306@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] Yes, it would appear that the correct adjustment should be to a weighted score, 67% of 3S = and 33% of 3S -1 (I think we always reject 3S - 2, as the declarer can make 8 tricks on normal play). [Nige1] That's the beauty of weighted scores :) If the match is close and the Director has a bet on one side or the other, he can get whatever result he needs by giving appropriate weights to a spectrum of scores ranging from 3SXX= through 2S= to 3SX-1 :) Even better, the result is unlikely to be appealed :) The WBF recommend that a committee's criterion for adjusting the score should be "beyond reasonable doubt" (rather than the "balance of probability" used for most decisions). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 4 00:12:38 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:12:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new laws and trying to get my spiels right. I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some players were probably excecuted who would now get off under the new rules. For example: I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the form: could be a short as 2. Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous cases Confused (Sydney) From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 07:35:04 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:35:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712022235s293e4d9h2bcdd457ea7903df@mail.gmail.com> [Richard Hills] 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). [Richard Hills, later clarification] 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. [Jerry Fusselman] When examined, this argument collapses. It is a non sequitur, and it looks like a great example for the next time I teach logic to graduate students. It is clearest to see what is wrong when we use symbolic logic. Let X be a bid. Law 29C states (A & B) -> C, where A = "X is insufficient" B = "X is artificial" C = "The provisions of Laws 30, 31, and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified by X, rather than the denomination named by X." Similarly, in the case that interests us, C can be denoted D -> E, where D = "The denomination(s) specified by X does not match the denomination named by X" E = "The provisions of Laws 30, 31, and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified by X." Thus, law 29C states (A & B) -> (D -> E). Now Richard's argument contains two accurate premises: (1) Ordinary Stayman names the denomination clubs, but it does not specify clubs. (2) (A & B) -> (D -> E). The conclusion he wants us to reach is that Ordinary Stayman in artificial. Obviously, he wants us to believe that the proposition "D -> B" follows from (2), for that is the only way to achieve his conclusion from the premises he gave. But of course it doesn't. That's why his argument is a non sequitur. For example, B can false at the same time that (2) is true. That is, (2) says nothing about the truth of B. Also, Richard says he bases his argument "on the core of Law 29C," which from his quote must be some part of C, but that can be asserted only if we assume A & B at least are true, which again is petitio principii. Anyway, there is nothing in Law 29C that precludes D being and B being false for some X's. We are left with the troubling 2007 definition of artificial, which in my original posting I have shown (No one has yet argued that I erred in any step) implies that ordinary Stayman is not artificial. If I have demonstrated the error in Richard's argument that ordinary Stayman is artificial under the 2007 laws, I would still like to see if anyone can make a valid argument that ordinary Stayman is artificial under the new laws. No one in this besides Richard has even attempted it. I find that peculiar. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 07:36:10 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:36:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712022236y2d977676o3c0eb53f57a5fd5d@mail.gmail.com> [2007 laws 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.'' [Richard Hills] 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. [1997 laws definition] Convention: ``A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.'' [Jerry Fusselman] Richard's example makes the 2007 definition of artificial look really bad to me. He is saying that had the parenthetical not been in the 2007 definition of artificial call, then 1H would have been artificial merely because it is forcing for one round---i.e., it shows some minimum strength. He is saying that the only thing that prevents 1H from being artificial (under the 2007 definition) in his example is that the strength shown in the case he gives equals the strength that is taken for granted by players generally. It seems he is saying that *any* bid that shows some point range that differs from what is generally taken for granted by players generally is artificial no matter how natural we all would have thought prior to reading the 2007 laws. If true, that has two terrible consequences: (1) Lots of bids that almost anyone would think are natural become artificial due to their nongeneral point ranges; (2) You have to somehow learn the different point ranges that players generally take for granted for more than a billion different scenarios. In the 1997 definition of convention, we see the sentence "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." The law makers seem to have borrowed the 2007 definition artificial from the 1997 definition of conventional, but they chose to omit that sentence about strength. Maybe they took out the sentence about strength because they wanted to see Richard's interpretation. Or, Richard, so far the sole defender of the 2007 definition in this thread, is wrong that point range determines whether calls are artificial or not. Can anyone tell? Personally, I had imagined that the intention behind the parenthetical phrase in the 2007 definition of artificial was to handle examples like the following: A standard opening bid of 1H that promises fewer spades than hearts. It says something about spades, but what it says about spades is generally taken for granted by players. But it seems I was being overly generous. Now I think I must agree with David Burn here: [DALB] Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less nonsensical. [Jerry Fusselman] But I am willing to hear people explain why David and I are wrong. It is fun to learn something and be amazed. Does anyone see any way to make sense of this? It seems possible that the definition of artificial should have included something like the following: "However, an agreement as to overall strength, or whether it is forcing or not, or suit-quality requirements, does not make a call artificial." Something like this anyway, and probably more provisos should be listed. Anyway, I am thinking some clarification would help here, otherwise there will chaos trying to implement laws that contain the word "artificial." -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 07:37:45 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:37:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> [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. [Jerry] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is whether 3H would have been artificial or not. Who can tell for sure under the new laws? Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. Also, in case it matters, it is game forcing. Here is my main question: Which denominations are in effect for laws 30, 31, and 32? Hearts, even though hearts was named? Diamonds, because now we are assured there are at least four diamonds? Clubs, because the call promises a singleton or void in clubs? Spades, because the alert happened to include the word spades? Currently, I think we have no way of knowing what denominations are to be applied to the provisions of laws 30, 31, and 32. This uncertainty looks like a problem to me. Jerry Fusselman From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 3 08:50:05 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:50:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?What_does_=22specified=22_mean_in_Law_29C?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> From: "Jerry Fusselman" > [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. > > [Jerry] > > What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > Maybe an example helps--- [Peter] not this one > consider this auction with no competition: > > 1S (5+ spades) ?- ?1N (forcing) > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") > > But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. ?The first question is > whether 3H would have been artificial or not. ?Who can tell for sure > under the new laws? ?Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it > guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. ?Also, in > case it matters, it is game forcing. > > Here is my main question: ?Which denominations are in effect for laws > 30, 31, and 32? ? [Peter] no one, because Laws 30-32 deal with calls out of rotation and not with insufficient bids. > Hearts, even though hearts was named? Diamonds, > because now we are assured there are at least four diamonds? ?Clubs, > because the call promises a singleton or void in clubs? ?Spades, > because the alert happened to include the word spades? > > Currently, I think we have no way of knowing what denominations are to > be applied to the provisions of laws 30, 31, and 32. ?This uncertainty > looks like a problem to me. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 3 10:16:56 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:16:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 and consequences Message-ID: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Law 24 states: When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, Law 49 states: Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in Law 24. A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm in a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. Director was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the card, although had he tried he could well have. In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is played. My feeling is that the less strong wording of Law 24 would lead to the ruling in this case that the player could just pick up the card. Opinions? Hans van Staveren From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 3 10:55:39 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:55:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4753D29B.2040805@meteo.fr> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new > laws and trying to get my spiels right. > > I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some > players were probably excecuted who would now get off > under the new rules. For example: > > I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and > LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", > and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. > My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old > rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the > form: could be a short as 2. > Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case > in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". > I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of > 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about > this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling > had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. > > Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous > cases i think you were wrong to allow the alteration to double. the condition for the replacement call to incorporate the information inbedded in the initial bid, means that the set of hands compatible with the replacement call is a subset of the set of hands compatible with the initial call. i think it was not the case here, rather the opposite. for example AK2,Q4,KJ975,J106 may be a double of 1NT and not a 1C opening. jpr > > Confused > (Sydney) > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 3 10:59:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:59:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 andconsequences In-Reply-To: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Message-ID: <000201c83593$2b23f2e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > Law 24 states: > When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a > player's > action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the > face > to be seen by his partner, > > Law 49 states: > Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a > defender's > card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face > > It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in > Law > 24. > > A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm > in > a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. > Director > was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like > everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the > card, although had he tried he could well have. > > In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card > such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is > played. > > My feeling is that the less strong wording of Law 24 would lead to the > ruling in this case that the player could just pick up the card. > > Opinions? Law 24 applies "during the auction" (1997) or "prior to the play period" (2007) Law 49 applies thereafter (during the play period). Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 3 11:29:50 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:29:50 EST Subject: [blml] Double and appeal Message-ID: In a message dated 02/12/2007 22:59:35 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: >If the match is close and the >Director has a bet on one side or the other And I had thought it was only tennis, horse-racing, soccer and snooker that had match-fixing allegations. Now you tell me that the gentleman's game of bridge has as well. And it has even had "pack-tampering" allegations like cricket. Time for the WBF to have a "Memo of Understanding" with Betfair, regulating who can bet and on what. Paul Lamford From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 3 11:54:05 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:54:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 andconsequences In-Reply-To: <000201c83593$2b23f2e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> <000201c83593$2b23f2e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002301c8359a$d2e3f690$78abe3b0$@nl> Sven says: Law 24 applies "during the auction" (1997) or "prior to the play period" (2007) Law 49 applies thereafter (during the play period). Regards Sven Me: Well thank you, that never occurred to me. (This is sarcasm, sorry) The question of course is what effect the different wording should have on the director. In this case partner could not have seen the card if he remained in his sitting position, and did not see it. Moving his body around he could have seen it. Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably an intention that director should rule more strict in the 49 case than the 24 case, but is that really meant to be? Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 12:38:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:38:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4753EAC0.3080203@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 01/12/2007 14:21:44 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no > writes: > > >> And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. >> > > Sorry, I fail to see how East with any "normal" defense can avoid two losers > in spades and one in each side suit for a total of five losers? > > Yes, I agree. It looks easy to switch to a diamond in time. As the 3H bid > seems fine, I would therefore adjust to 3S-1. > > > AG : if declarer lets the HQ hold and you switch to a diamond, 3S might well make (small spade from the hand) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 12:46:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:46:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artifical? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4753EC95.8070808@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 02/12/2007 01:10:07 GMT Standard Time, > dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > > [DALB] > > I have always presumed that the laws prohibit communication between partners > other than by means of legal calls or plays ... > > [Lamford] > > I had presumed this only applies before the cards have been removed from the > wallet. If not, then I must confess to an illegal coded agreement I had with > a former partner, where the question "Would you like a drink?" meant "How > good is this pair that has just arrived at our table?", and the reply "Yes, a > pint of lager, please." meant "Dead from the neck up." > > AG : or "it gets cloudy", meaning "let's be serious with our bids once in a while, they're even more crazy than we are and I'd like to know who's making what to whom". The reason beneath that code is that bids which might be outrageaous are marked with an asterisk in our system notes, and when it gets cloudy, stars are no more visible LOThL. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 3 12:48:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:48:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law49 andconsequences In-Reply-To: <002301c8359a$d2e3f690$78abe3b0$@nl> Message-ID: <000601c835a2$7453c440$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > Sven says: > > Law 24 applies "during the auction" (1997) or "prior to the play period" > (2007) > > Law 49 applies thereafter (during the play period). > > Regards Sven > > > Me: > > Well thank you, that never occurred to me. (This is sarcasm, sorry) > > The question of course is what effect the different wording should have on > the director. > In this case partner could not have seen the card if he remained in his > sitting position, and did not see it. Moving his body around he could have > seen it. > > Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably an intention > that > director should rule more strict in the 49 case than the 24 case, but is > that really meant to be? I think there is every reason to believe that is exactly what is meant to be, although I feel that the difference between "in position for the face to be seen by his partner" (2007L24) and "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face" (2007L49) is rather marginal. In either case the Director will normally accept that a card is not "exposed" even when faced if it is in a position where partner must bend over to see its face (e.g. under the table). But again in either case if there is doubt about whether the card can have been seen by partner the Director will rule that it is indeed "exposed", particularly if either opponent can name the card. Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 4 07:49:35 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:49:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) In-Reply-To: <4753D29B.2040805@meteo.fr> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4753D29B.2040805@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203224631.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 01:55 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > > As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new > > laws and trying to get my spiels right. > > > > I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some > > players were probably excecuted who would now get off > > under the new rules. For example: > > > > I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and > > LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", > > and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. > > My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old > > rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the > > form: could be a short as 2. > > Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case > > in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". > > I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of > > 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about > > this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling > > had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. > > > > Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous > > cases jpr: >i think you were wrong to allow the alteration to double. the condition > for the replacement call to incorporate the information inbedded in >the initial bid, means that the set of hands compatible with the >replacement call is a subset of the set of hands compatible with the >initial call. i think it was not the case here, rather the opposite. for >example AK2,Q4,KJ975,J106 may be a double of 1NT and not a 1C opening. Indeed, I would be more than happy never to offer the chance to replace a bid by a double. Now I am worried about my 1st case again: 1C (1S) 1H. The offer of a change to 2H would certainly not be a subset of hands which could respond 1H to 1C. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 13:08:02 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:08:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <475338BA.6040306@ntlworld.com> References: <475338BA.6040306@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4753F1A2.6050309@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Paul Lamford] > Yes, it would appear that the correct adjustment should be to a > weighted score, 67% of 3S = and 33% of 3S -1 (I think we always reject > 3S - 2, as the declarer can make 8 tricks on normal play). > > [Nige1] > That's the beauty of weighted scores :) If the match is close and the > Director has a bet on one side or the other, he can get whatever > result he needs by giving appropriate weights to a spectrum of scores > ranging from 3SXX= through 2S= to 3SX-1 :) > > AG : I don't understand that attack. L12 tells us what to do, and directors (and ACs) don't have that much left to interpretation. According to its specific phraseology, the NOS will obviously score -140, as it has been demonstrated that 3S= is quite a plausible result. As for the OS, it should be either -140 or -170 (if you think the latter is possible, on a club lead perhaps). Note that, the 3H bid being obvious, pulling back to 2S isn't among the possibilities. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 13:22:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:22:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 and consequences In-Reply-To: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> References: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Message-ID: <4753F4FA.7030603@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Law 24 states: > When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's > action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face > to be seen by his partner, > > Law 49 states: > Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's > card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face > > It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in Law > 24. > > A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm in > a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. Director > was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like > everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the > card, although had he tried he could well have. > > In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card > such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is > played. > > > Is that only "is in a position" ? In the French version it is "is put in such a position that ..." (est plac?e). I'd rule the card wasn't put anywhere, only dropped, so that L24 will apply instead. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 13:22:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:22:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 and consequences In-Reply-To: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> References: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Message-ID: <4753F4FA.7030603@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Law 24 states: > When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's > action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face > to be seen by his partner, > > Law 49 states: > Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's > card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face > > It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in Law > 24. > > A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm in > a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. Director > was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like > everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the > card, although had he tried he could well have. > > In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card > such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is > played. > > > Is that only "is in a position" ? In the French version it is "is put in such a position that ..." (est plac?e). I'd rule the card wasn't put anywhere, only dropped, so that L24 will apply instead. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 3 14:33:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:33:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49and consequences In-Reply-To: <4753F4FA.7030603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c835b1$0dcb2600$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............ > Is that only "is in a position" ? In the French version it is "is put in > such a position that ..." (est plac?e). > > I'd rule the card wasn't put anywhere, only dropped, so that L24 will > apply instead. Both Law 24 and Law 49 use the phrase:" ... card or cards are in a position ...", how they got into this position is immaterial. So whether the card(s) became visible from being accidentally dropped, from being boxed in the board or simply by being played does not matter except for how the situation is subsequently handled. If the French word "plac?e" indicates an action then it is an incorrect translation; if it (as I would believe) simply indicates a state it is perfectly OK. Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 3 15:10:12 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:10:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203224631.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au><4753D29 B.2040805@meteo.fr> <6.1.0.6.2.20071203224631.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47540E44.6070206@meteo.fr> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 01:55 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >>> As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new >>> laws and trying to get my spiels right. >>> >>> I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some >>> players were probably excecuted who would now get off >>> under the new rules. For example: >>> >>> I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and >>> LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", >>> and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. >>> My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old >>> rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the >>> form: could be a short as 2. >>> Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case >>> in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". >>> I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of >>> 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about >>> this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling >>> had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. >>> >>> Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous >>> cases > > jpr: > >> i think you were wrong to allow the alteration to double. the condition >> for the replacement call to incorporate the information inbedded in >> the initial bid, means that the set of hands compatible with the >> replacement call is a subset of the set of hands compatible with the >> initial call. i think it was not the case here, rather the opposite. for >> example AK2,Q4,KJ975,J106 may be a double of 1NT and not a 1C opening. > > Indeed, I would be more than happy never to offer the chance to replace a bid > by a double. Now I am worried about my 1st case again: > > 1C (1S) 1H. The offer of a change to 2H would certainly not be a subset > of hands which could respond 1H to 1C. i fail to understand what you mean. could you give an example of a hand worth of 2H (1C 1S 2H) and not worth of 1H (1C P 1H)? jpr > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 3 14:11:54 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:11:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000e01c835b9$f406d710$87d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? From: "Jerry Fusselman" > [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. > > Here is my main question: Which denominations are in > effect for laws 30, 31, and 32? Currently, I think we have > no way of knowing what denominations are to be applied > to the provisions of laws 30, 31, and 32. This uncertainty > looks like a problem to me. > +=+ Uncertainty is usually source of a problem. Let us see if we can grope our way onto firmer ground. 'specify' = "to refer to specifically" 'specifically' = "explicitly, particularly, definitely" Questions we have to ask, therefore, in applying Laws 30, 31, 32, are: 1. Is the call out of rotation an artificial call, i.e. does it convey information other than a willingness to play in the denomination named or last named? Is it a pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength or promises or denies values other than in the last suit named? 2. If yes, does it refer explicitly, particularly, or definitely, to one or more denominations other than the one named or last named? 3. How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition of 'artificial call'.? [Here the matter to be determined is whether the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later auction) such as an inference that the caller is interested in a particular suit or suits? The definition is open ended and I have failed this far to identify what in the 2007 Laws might exclude such presumptive information. Is it not information on which partner may eventually rely in the absence of contrary indications? Is it not true that every bid is technically an offer to contract for the number of tricks specified in the denomination named, with information about the hand deriving secondarily from inference or from partnership understanding?] _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 3 12:28:03 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:28:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000d01c835b9$f246b080$87d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) > As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new > laws and trying to get my spiels right. > > I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some > players were probably excecuted who would now get off > under the new rules. For example: > > I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and > LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", > and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. > My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old > rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the > form: could be a short as 2. > Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case > in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". > I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of > 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about > this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling > had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. > > Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous > cases > +=+ Dear Tony, In the spirit of the pioneer you are seeking to walk where none but the gods have walked before. It is a little early to ask for a map. I do know of one or two intentions to switch to the 2007 laws on January 1st - the earliest date authorized. Others plan to follow later - some as late as September 2008. It happens that Law 27C is one of the first that we have been discussing for treatment in the planned Appendix. There are two reasons that inhibit revelation of what the Appendix will say about it. First, we are not yet consensually agreed on every aspect of 27C. Second, opinion is split in the drafting committee as to whether we should wait until (substantially) the whole appendix has been agreed or whether we should make each item available as we reach agreement on it. To be helpful if I can, it is the case that there is core agreement that the offending side should not gain advantage out of information from the withdrawn bid that is not contained within the meaning of the substituted call. There is also a thought, not yet agreed, that if the Director is of the opinion that the substituted call so very nearly meets the requirements of this law as to be unlikely to affect the outcome of the hand he should allow it - but use Law 27C2 if it eventually appears the margin may indeed have affected the outcome. I do not foresee where we will arrive with this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 3 12:28:03 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:28:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) References: <6.1.0.6.2.20071203145801.0c855280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000d01c835b9$f246b080$87d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) > As I have mentioned previously, I am now using the new > laws and trying to get my spiels right. > > I never had any trouble with the old L27, although some > players were probably excecuted who would now get off > under the new rules. For example: > > I was playing today as a fill in. I opened 1NT (strong) and > LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", > and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. > My partner rejected the 1C insufficient bid, so under the old > rules I would have barred the 1C's partner, since 1C is of the > form: could be a short as 2. > Upon reflection, I allowed the alteration to double in the case > in question, since their system calls a double of 1NT as "optional". > I suppose that means that it incorporates all the meaning of > 1C (I can open the bidding partner). I am a bit uneasy about > this ruling since I would not have offered the chance of doubling > had I been called to the table under normal circumstances. > > Still awaiting some definitive ruling on this and other previous > cases > +=+ Dear Tony, In the spirit of the pioneer you are seeking to walk where none but the gods have walked before. It is a little early to ask for a map. I do know of one or two intentions to switch to the 2007 laws on January 1st - the earliest date authorized. Others plan to follow later - some as late as September 2008. It happens that Law 27C is one of the first that we have been discussing for treatment in the planned Appendix. There are two reasons that inhibit revelation of what the Appendix will say about it. First, we are not yet consensually agreed on every aspect of 27C. Second, opinion is split in the drafting committee as to whether we should wait until (substantially) the whole appendix has been agreed or whether we should make each item available as we reach agreement on it. To be helpful if I can, it is the case that there is core agreement that the offending side should not gain advantage out of information from the withdrawn bid that is not contained within the meaning of the substituted call. There is also a thought, not yet agreed, that if the Director is of the opinion that the substituted call so very nearly meets the requirements of this law as to be unlikely to affect the outcome of the hand he should allow it - but use Law 27C2 if it eventually appears the margin may indeed have affected the outcome. I do not foresee where we will arrive with this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 3 17:21:43 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:21:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <000e01c835b9$f406d710$87d5403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <000e01c835b9$f406d710$87d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47542D17.10103@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > 2. If yes, does it refer explicitly, particularly, or definitely, to > one or more denominations other than the one named or last > named? > 3. How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition > of 'artificial call'.? [Here the matter to be determined is whether > the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's > hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that > in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later > auction) AG : Even if the call only refers to one specific suit, there might be a problem. Kxx xx xxx Q10xxx The unobstructed sequence would be, with some of my former partners : 1C (strong) - 1D (weak) - 1S (4+ cards) - 2C (exactly 3 spades, at least a little something, and passable with longer clubs than spades). Now they tell me RHO has bid 2D over 1S. I'd like to bid 2S, but partner might think -wrongly- that I hold 4 of them. A TO double isn't a good idea with only 2 hearts and a non-maximum. But the new rules tell me I'm allowed to bid 2S without penalty (referring only to spades, too) and partner will be remembered I could do it on a 3-card in a pinch. This looks like L23 craning its neck once again, never a good idea. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 3 18:27:43 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:27:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> <000101c83483$1d7f47e0$587dd7a0$@com> Message-ID: <00c701c835d1$d0296570$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double and appeal > [Paul Lamford] > > And I agree with either 2S+1 or 3S= as an adjusted score. > > [DALB] > > Someone (it may have been Sven) suggested that no "normal" defence would > fail to take five tricks against spades. Well, a heart lead will beat 3S, > but no other lead will. It is entirely possible that South at the table > would start with the ace of clubs, hoping later to put North in and get a > club ruff - after that, any half-way competent declarer will make nine > tricks in spades. > > How probable it is that South would lead the ace of clubs is left as an > exercise for the reader. It is obvious, though, that Sven (a highly > competent director) has completely overlooked even the possibility. That > is > why bridge judgements should be left to bridge players and not tournament > directors. David, that is unnecessarily insulting. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 3 18:29:27 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:29:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 andconsequences References: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Message-ID: <00f901c835d2$0ea99c20$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 andconsequences > Law 24 states: > When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a > player's > action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the > face > to be seen by his partner, > > Law 49 states: > Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a > defender's > card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face > > It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in > Law > 24. > > A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm > in > a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. > Director > was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like > everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the > card, although had he tried he could well have. > > In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card > such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is > played. > > My feeling is that the less strong wording of Law 24 would lead to the > ruling in this case that the player could just pick up the card. Do we play bridge? john > > Opinions? > > > Hans van Staveren > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Dec 3 22:46:14 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:46:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: > > 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. > consider this auction with no competition: > > 1S (5+ spades) ?- ?1N (forcing) > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") (after a 2H insufficient bid) > ton: I don't understand the problem, as Peter said laws 30 etc do not apply at all. I hardly have learned anything more about bidding theory than is in the second book for a beginners course. But then these were not so bad in those days. So 1 From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 22:57:24 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:57:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <4754793e.2215300a.1b73.4927SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <4754793e.2215300a.1b73.4927SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712031357x73e90c9ah8f17abfb80212ec1@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 3, 2007 3:46 PM, ton wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > consider this auction with no competition: > > > > 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) > > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") (after a 2H insufficient bid) > > > > ton: > I don't understand the problem, as Peter said laws 30 etc do not apply at > all. > > I hardly have learned anything more about bidding theory than is in the > second book for a beginners course. But then these were not so bad in those > days. > > So 1 > Ton and Peter, sorry for being unclear. Please assume the 2H call comes too soon. Here is the auction including everyone: 1S P 1N P 2D P 2N 2H with 2H insufficient and early. Is that clear? I want to know which denominations are specified in this example. Jerry Fusselman From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 4 00:08:03 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:08:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > [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. > > [Jerry] > > What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: > > 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") > > But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is > whether 3H would have been artificial or not. Who can tell for sure > under the new laws? Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it > guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. Also, in > case it matters, it is game forcing. In this particular case, I would say that the call is not conventional, because the suit implications are part of general bridge knowledge. A player who bids three suits in the face of partner's attempt to play NT must be short in the fourth suit; with 5332, he would either pass or raise NT. The fourth diamond is also an inference; with six spades, he would have bid 3S or bid 2S the second round, and with four hearts and only three diamonds, he would have bid 2H, not 2D, on the second round. > Here is my main question: Which denominations are in effect for laws > 30, 31, and 32? Hearts, even though hearts was named? Diamonds, > because now we are assured there are at least four diamonds? Clubs, > because the call promises a singleton or void in clubs? Spades, > because the alert happened to include the word spades? Hearts are the relevant denomination, because this bid's primary message was about hearts, and the holdings in the other suits are secondary inferences. This applies even to clearly natural calls: 1C-1H-2D is a bid everyone agrees is natural, but it also carries information about four suits; it shows at least four diamonds, longer clubs than diamonds, and denies four cards in either major. If it is out of turn, the penalty applies only to diamonds, even though the 1C opening could have been three cards (two in some styles) without the 2D bid and is now known to be five. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 4 01:00:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:00:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de><000e01c835b9$f406d710$87d5403e@Mildred> <47542D17.10103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002c01c83608$f5584460$92cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > 2. If yes, does it refer explicitly, particularly, or definitely, to > one or more denominations other than the one named or last > named? > 3. How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition > of 'artificial call'.? [Here the matter to be determined is whether > the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's > hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that > in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later > auction) AG : Even if the call only refers to one specific suit, there might be a problem. Kxx xx xxx Q10xxx The unobstructed sequence would be, with some of my former partners : 1C (strong) - 1D (weak) - 1S (4+ cards) - 2C (exactly 3 spades, at least a little something, and passable with longer clubs than spades). Now they tell me RHO has bid 2D over 1S. I'd like to bid 2S, but partner might think -wrongly- that I hold 4 of them. A TO double isn't a good idea with only 2 hearts and a non-maximum. But the new rules tell me I'm allowed to bid 2S without penalty (referring only to spades, too) and partner will be remembered I could do it on a 3-card in a pinch. This looks like L23 craning its neck once again, never a good idea. Best regards Alain .................................................................................... +=+ You are saying something about Law 29 and linking your comments to an example concerning an insufficient bid. Please clarify what is your point. If we look at your example in the light of Law 27C1 we will discover that the law does not use the phrase 'without penalty' or the like; instead it says the auction and play "continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides" - but subject to a 27C2 adjustment if the Director "judges that without assistance from the withdrawn bid the contract could well have been different and the non-offending side is damaged". This applies if the contract could well have been different if the partner did not have the knowledge that the 2S may be only three cards (It may also be relevant on occasion that offender knows his partner has that information). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 4 01:07:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:07:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c8359a$d2e3f690$78abe3b0$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably >an intention that director should rule more strict in the >49 case than the 24 case, but is that really meant to be? Richard Hills: "Probably an intention"? I prefer possibly an intention. Another possibility is a failure of comparative proof- reading between two Laws widely differing in Law numbers. In the 1997 Lawbook there was a difference in wording between the strict Law 73C "carefully avoid taking any advantage that" and the loose Law 75 footnote "careful not to base subsequent actions on". Players who claimed, "I was always going to choose logical alternative P," could point to the 1997 Law 75 footnote as justification, despite Law 73C requiring them to choose the less successful logical alternative Q. But in the 2007 Lawbook the new Law 75 (successor to the 1997 Law 75 footnote) has been harmonised in wording with Law 73C - including addition of a cross-reference - thanks to one of the 2007 successes in comparative proof-reading. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 4 01:44:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:44:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712022236y2d977676o3c0eb53f57a5fd5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >..... >then 1H would have been artificial merely >because it is forcing for one round---i.e., >it shows some minimum strength. >..... >It seems he is saying that *any* bid that >shows some point range that differs from >what is generally taken for granted by >players generally is artificial no matter >how natural we all would have thought prior >to reading the 2007 laws. >..... Richard Hills: No, a call can be "forcing for one round" without promising any strength. For example, it is popular amongst some circles in the ACBL to respond to partner's SAYC 1C opening with a "forcing for one round" 1S on a yarborough and six spades. What I am saying is that the Culbertson style of "approach forcing" has had remarkable longevity from the 1930s until now, so it is a prime candidate to qualify for "information taken for granted by players generally". Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 4 02:05:23 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:05:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 and consequences In-Reply-To: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> References: <001a01c8358d$42ca3c70$c85eb550$@nl> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > My feeling is that the less strong wording of Law 24 would lead to the > ruling in this case that the player could just pick up the card. I haven't read the replies from others here, but it occurs to me that if I am sitting at the table, holding my cards fanned and facing toward me in the normal manner, every one of those cards is one of which my partner "could possibly see its face" -- if he gets up and walks around the table. The law, however, doesn't place constraints like "could, while sitting in his chair and acting in a reasonable manner, possibly see its face". Nonetheless, I would tell the player who dropped a face up card on the floor, on his side of the table, to pick it up and put it back in his hand unless I had pretty clear evidence that his partner had either seen it, or made a distinct effort to do so. If an opponent has seen the card, well bully for him. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 4 02:13:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:13:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:37 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is > whether 3H would have been artificial or not. Who can tell for sure > under the new laws? Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it > guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. Also, in > case it matters, it is game forcing. I have seen definitions of "natural" that apply to opening bids. I see no reason why those definitions should apply to a suit bid on the third round. Opener's first bid shows 5+ spades, his second 4+ diamonds (unless he's manufacturing a bid for some reason), his third, well, if we require it to show 4+ hearts in order not to be artificial, then a natural suit bid on the third round in just about any auction is *almost always* going to be artificial. I don't buy it. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 4 03:03:17 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:03:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double and appeal In-Reply-To: <00c701c835d1$d0296570$0701a8c0@john> References: <000001c83425$7514f080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><4752014C.3040003@ntlworld.com> <000101c83483$1d7f47e0$587dd7a0$@com> <00c701c835d1$d0296570$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4754B565.1010100@ntlworld.com> [John Pot Probst] David, that is unnecessarily insulting. [Nige1] Good one, John! :) :) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 4 08:22:25 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:22:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?What_does_=22specified=22_mean_in_Law_29C?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712031357x73e90c9ah8f17abfb80212ec1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1Iz645-2Af0vQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <4754793e.2215300a.1b73.4927SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <2b1e598b0712031357x73e90c9ah8f17abfb80212ec1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1IzS6r-1HWz0S0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> [Jerry] > > > 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. > > > > > consider this auction with no competition: > > > > > > 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) > > > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > > > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") (after a 2H insufficient > > > bid) [Ton] > > I don't understand the problem, as Peter said laws 30 etc do not > > apply at all. > > > > I hardly have learned anything more about bidding theory than is in > > the second book for a beginners course. But then these were not so > > bad in those days. > > > > So 1 [Jerry] > Ton and Peter, sorry for being unclear. ?Please assume the 2H call > comes too soon. ? Here is the auction including everyone: > > 1S ?P ?1N ?P > 2D ?P ?2N ? > 2H > > with 2H insufficient and early. ?Is that clear? > > I want to know which denominations are specified in this example. [Peter] Although I do not see any merit in _this_ example (either RHO passes, in which case we are in insufficient-bid territory again; or RHO makes any bid or double, in which case opponents will be in trouble soon ;-)), I'll try. Bidding a third "natural" suit in a hand, obviously makes the 4th suit short. So, IMHO the denomination specified here is hearts. The fact, that it is game forcing, may make the bid artificial, but does not touch the 'denomination' part of Law 29 C. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 4 12:02:21 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:02:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> Message-ID: <004401c83665$4df667d0$67d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > >> [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. >> >> [Jerry] >> >> What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? >> >> Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: >> >> 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) >> 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) >> 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") >> >> But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is >> whether 3H would have been artificial or not. Who can tell for sure >> under the new laws? Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it >> guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. Also, in >> case it matters, it is game forcing. > > In this particular case, I would say that the call is not conventional, > because the suit implications are part of general bridge knowledge. > A player who bids three suits in the face of partner's attempt to > play NT must be short in the fourth suit; with 5332, he would either > pass or raise NT. The fourth diamond is also an inference; with six > spades, he would have bid 3S or bid 2S the second round, and > with four hearts and only three diamonds, he would have bid 2H, > not 2D, on the second round. > >> Here is my main question: Which denominations are in effect >> for laws 30, 31, and 32? Hearts, even though hearts was named? >> Diamonds, because now we are assured there are at least four >> diamonds? Clubs, because the call promises a singleton or void >> in clubs? Spades, because the alert happened to include the word >> spades? > > Hearts are the relevant denomination, because this bid's primary > message was about hearts, and the holdings in the other suits are > secondary inferences. > > This applies even to clearly natural calls: 1C-1H-2D is a bid > everyone agrees is natural, but it also carries information about four > suits; it shows at least four diamonds, longer clubs than diamonds, > and denies four cards in either major. If it is out of turn, the penalty > applies only to diamonds, even though the 1C opening could have > been three cards (two in some styles) without the 2D bid and is now > known to be five. > +=+ As an aside, you will recall that I had asked myself this question: "How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition of 'artificial call'.? [Here the matter to be determined is whether the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later auction) such as an inference that the caller is interested in a particular suit or suits? The definition is open ended and I have failed this far to identify what in the 2007 Laws might exclude such presumptive information. Is it not information on which partner may eventually rely in the absence of contrary indications? Is it not true that every bid is technically an offer to contract for the number of tricks specified in the denomination named, with information about the hand deriving secondarily from inference or from partnership understanding?] Initially I was thinking about the discussion I had read as to whether 2C Stayman conveys information or not, ergo is it by definition 'artificial'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 4 12:56:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:56:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > I have seen definitions of "natural" that apply to opening bids. I > see no reason why those definitions should apply to a suit bid on the > third round. Opener's first bid shows 5+ spades, his second 4+ > diamonds (unless he's manufacturing a bid for some reason), his > third, well, if we require it to show 4+ hearts in order not to be > artificial, then a natural suit bid on the third round in just about > any auction is *almost always* going to be artificial. I don't buy it. > +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!) use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 4 14:35:12 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:35:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003001c8367a$bdebb3f0$fdcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Hans van Staveren: > > [snip] > >>Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably >>an intention that director should rule more strict in the >>49 case than the 24 case, but is that really meant to be? > > Richard Hills: > > "Probably an intention"? I prefer possibly an intention. > Another possibility is a failure of comparative proof- > reading between two Laws widely differing in Law numbers. > > In the 1997 Lawbook there was a difference in wording > between the strict Law 73C "carefully avoid taking any > advantage that" and the loose Law 75 footnote "careful not > to base subsequent actions on". > > Players who claimed, "I was always going to choose logical > alternative P," could point to the 1997 Law 75 footnote as > justification, despite Law 73C requiring them to choose > the less successful logical alternative Q. > > But in the 2007 Lawbook the new Law 75 (successor to the > 1997 Law 75 footnote) has been harmonised in wording with > Law 73C - including addition of a cross-reference - thanks > to one of the 2007 successes in comparative proof-reading. > > +=+ Spoken like a true comparative proof reader ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 4 18:47:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:47:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2D8E6C05-BA94-47EE-B11C-CA152DC80482@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Guthrie 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"). > > [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. ISTM that in TNFLB, those ubiquitous negative inferences might be precisely that "information taken for granted by players generally" the parsing of which began this thread. I think it's too far a stretch to include knowledge of any artificial agreements, even ones as common as Stayman, as falling into the category of "taken for granted by players generally". Perhaps the idea was simply to preclude the argument that an ordinary 1H opening might be "artificial" because it denies a seven-card spade suit by agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 08:17:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:17:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2D8E6C05-BA94-47EE-B11C-CA152DC80482@starpower.net> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> <2D8E6C05-BA94-47EE-B11C-CA152DC80482@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712042317o74c279eep91f758e42644645@mail.gmail.com> [Eric Landau] ISTM that in TNFLB, those ubiquitous negative inferences might be precisely that "information taken for granted by players generally" the parsing of which began this thread. I think it's too far a stretch to include knowledge of any artificial agreements, even ones as common as Stayman, as falling into the category of "taken for granted by players generally". Perhaps the idea was simply to preclude the argument that an ordinary 1H opening might be "artificial" because it denies a seven-card spade suit by agreement. [Jerry Fusselman] Once again, Eric and I agree. Here, he accidentally duplicated my example of what a 1H opening shows about spades from two days ago. Well, his example is just slightly more specific, but we see the intention behind the parenthetical in the definition of *artificial* in exactly the same light. Here is what I wrote two days ago: [Jerry Fusselman, 48 hours ago, in "Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]"] Personally, I had imagined that the intention behind the parenthetical phrase in the 2007 definition of artificial was to handle examples like the following: A standard opening bid of 1H that promises fewer spades than hearts. It says something about spades, but what it says about spades is generally taken for granted by players. ... [Jerry Fusselman] However, the parenthetical, due to its location in the first sentence of the definition of artificial in the new laws, does much more than this, unfortunately. I still think the new definition of artificial is a big mistake, as in the case of making ordinary Stayman not artificial. Remember, everyone, I am not saying that ordinary Stayman is natural in the commonly understood bridge meaning of the word. What I am saying is that any reasonable-but-careful interpretation of "artificial" as defined in the new laws makes ordinary Stayman not artificial. Only Richard Hills so far has argued that I am wrong here, but I think I carefully refuted his amazing argument that we must use law 29C rather than the explicit definition in the laws to determine the definition of *artificial* in the new laws. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 08:41:46 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:41:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0712022236y2d977676o3c0eb53f57a5fd5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712042341i5a0f0dafna942d5bdd536b5da@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry Fusselman] >..... >then 1H would have been artificial merely >because it is forcing for one round---i.e., >it shows some minimum strength. >..... >It seems he is saying that *any* bid that >shows some point range that differs from >what is generally taken for granted by >players generally is artificial no matter >how natural we all would have thought prior >to reading the 2007 laws. >..... [Richard Hills] No, a call can be "forcing for one round" without promising any strength. For example, it is popular amongst some circles in the ACBL to respond to partner's SAYC 1C opening with a "forcing for one round" 1S on a yarborough and six spades. What I am saying is that the Culbertson style of "approach forcing" has had remarkable longevity from the 1930s until now, so it is a prime candidate to qualify for "information taken for granted by players generally". [Jerry Fusselman] This is really a bad situation. Really bad. Who decides what is "information taken for granted by players generally"? 1930 Convinces you. Well, what if that started in 2003?---is that too late? A definition of artificial with "taken for granted by players generally" is sure to provide lots of randomness as the beholder decides what it means. By the way, your example about forcing vs. strength is not that convincing, because a really long suit is strength in and of itself. You can be relatively strong without many HCP if your suit is long enough. If 0 HCP with 6 spades is enough to warrant that 1S response but 0 HCP with 4 spades is not, then there is still a minimum strength requirement. Do you really think that HCP is all that matters for determining strength? Your position on my statement is unclear to me. Do you agree or disagree with my proposition, trying to understand your position, that "*any* bid that shows some point range that differs from what is generally taken for granted by players generally is artificial no matter how natural we all would have thought prior to reading the 2007 laws." Actually, I agree with this statement, given the current laws, though I find the result untenable. Remember, I am going by the new definition of *artificial*, not necessarily common sense or previous understandings of what is artificial. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 08:56:18 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:56:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712042356h21ce0233vf71fd2286c43f315@mail.gmail.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. [Jerry] David, I think Nigel has you here. What part of his argument do you disagree with? Do you think that there is no such thing as a negative inference as Nigel means, or do you think that they are not really information for some reason? And what is your response to Nigel's devastating (to your position) example? Why not just admit that ordinary Stayman conveys information? Negative information if you like to call it that, but information just the same. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 08:56:18 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:56:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <47505D03.9030509@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712042356h21ce0233vf71fd2286c43f315@mail.gmail.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. [Jerry] David, I think Nigel has you here. What part of his argument do you disagree with? Do you think that there is no such thing as a negative inference as Nigel means, or do you think that they are not really information for some reason? And what is your response to Nigel's devastating (to your position) example? Why not just admit that ordinary Stayman conveys information? Negative information if you like to call it that, but information just the same. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 09:21:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:21:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.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"). [Ed Reppert] 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. [Jerry] Good, it is better to refute a position that more than one person holds. So, David and Eric, you both argue that `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").' I find it an amazing position. You two are saying that if you cannot say specifically and for sure something about North's hand, then you have no knowledge whatsoever about his hand. By that thinking, an opening bid of a multi 2D provides no information whatsoever, because no one can say anything specific about Opener's hand in six words or less. Do you really think that? Maybe the fact that "everyone" knows what the multi 2D opening shows messes up this example for you. Whether or not the meaning of a bid is common knowledge is not crucial. I'll give you another example. Suppose my defense to 1C Precision includes a 1D overcall showing either hearts or the black suits. Is my partner allowed to say that my 1D overcall provides no information because he cannot, as David put it, "describe some specific feature" of my hand? Any reasonable bridge player would say "no", and yet reasoning from the quote, David's and Ed's answer would be "yes." It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands that can make the bid. Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information about a hand simply because the information it provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 09:33:52 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:33:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c8334a$ff37c2a0$74d0403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <002b01c8334a$ff37c2a0$74d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712050033m26923651y687fcbe097e8a5d2@mail.gmail.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"). > [Grattan] +=+ 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 ~ +=+ [Jerry] Grattan, thanks for understanding that my subject in this thread is focused on the new definition of *artificial* rather than any old understanding we have had. However, when you say "it hardly matters," you are painting with too broad of a brush. Do you really think you took the trouble of writing an explicit definition of "artificial call" that has little or no effect? I have a sneaking suspicion it matters in every single place it occurs in the laws. It has an effect especially in laws containing the word artificial without the term special partnership understanding, such as Law 29C. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 10:16:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:16:23 -0600 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: <2b1e598b0712050116p2650e027w6960a8ac1efd2488@mail.gmail.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"). [JF] Yes, I am indeed inclined to think of the problem as one schooled in the mathematics of information theory. Thanks for noticing that. However, the discipline of information theory is not supposed to help you come up with totally alien answers to the problem at hand. If it did, then the use of information theory was incompetent. If you agree that I got the information theory right, then I must have gotten the whole thing right---otherwise, it is not valid information theory. So I can understand your position better, please let me ask you this: Suppose you are the opener, and the auction goes 1NT-2C-2H-P (no competition). If the opponents ask you what your partner has shown, I imagine, from what you wrote above, that you would convey something like this: "2C is just an asking bid which therefore gives no information whatsoever about partner's hand, and pass here has a totally obvious meaning, so good luck, you are 100% on your own, I don't have to say a thing more." Do I have your answer approximately right? Seriously, what you say, and why? Alternately, perhaps you can tell me which kinds of asking bids convey any information at all. And which kind of bids that are consisent with more than one kind of hand convey any information at all? From your position above, it would appear there aren't any in your estimation. Jerry Fusselman From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 5 13:08:06 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:08:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT Message-ID: <001e01c83737$7ed42360$0701a8c0@john> So there I am, chatting away to my opponents, one of them a Heidi who is decidedly not a 2 bag job - one bag for your head in case her's splits, and someone puts down a pass card so I grab a bid from my box which happens to be 1H.but when it gets on the table 2 things happen: I intended it to be 1S; someone points out it was LHO who had passed. Yeah, mea maxima culpa so I call in the NYPD who're allegedly competent. Anyway, this one's just for entertainment as it really happened whereas most things here didn't, won't or are irrelevant, give a ruling please. NB I have attempted to write in pseudo Grattanese with hanging clauses everywhere. luv John From Gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 5 14:22:03 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:22:03 EST Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/12/2007 08:22:13 GMT Standard Time, jfusselman at gmail.com writes: >It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information >about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands >that can make the bid. The problem is that almost all bids including all passes provide information, other than the last, penultimate and antepenultimate passes in an auction that has been preceded by 7NT - Double - Redouble. There are other bids which are essentially forced relays, but even these contain some information. Those that play that, after a strong 2C, responder invariably relays with 2D, are still conveying information with the latter "Sorry, pard, I don't have enough to jump to 7NT opposite all possible 2C openers." "Providing information" must therefore refer to bids that essentially give information about the hand rather than request information about the partner's hand or say nothing (such as forced relays). And common sense can usually be used to decide to which category a bid belongs. From david.j.barton at sky.com Wed Dec 5 17:15:58 2007 From: david.j.barton at sky.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:15:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? References: Message-ID: <000f01c8375a$1f131df0$0300a8c0@david> I received a phone call to give a ruling from a team match being played privately. The auction had gone 1N (1) X (2) P (3) P 2C/XX (4) P (5) P 2C X P P P (1) 12-14 (2) Penalty (3) Alerted - forces partner to redouble (to play or single suited escape) (4) Momentarily confused about his agreements, 2C is removed from the bidding box. Before it is placed on the table his LHO asks about the alert of the pass. Coming to his senses he correctly explains the agreement, returns the 2C to the bidding box and substitutes redouble. (5) "Reserves his Rights" before passing. Result was 2C minus 4 for 1100 penalty. Regulations state "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." It was accepted that the 2C was removed "with intent". Do you allow the result to stand? What is the basis for your ruling? Thanks ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: 04/12/2007 19:31 From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 19:23:14 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:23:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712051023k50daf7fan823ac02035413fea@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry] >It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information >about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands >that can make the bid. [Lamford] The problem is that almost all bids including all passes provide information, other than the last, penultimate and antepenultimate passes in an auction that has been preceded by 7NT - Double - Redouble. There are other bids which are essentially forced relays, but even these contain some information. Those that play that, after a strong 2C, responder invariably relays with 2D, are still conveying information with the latter "Sorry, pard, I don't have enough to jump to 7NT opposite all possible 2C openers." [Jerry] I agree with your assertions here except the first four words. I don't see this otherwise correct analysis as any problem to my position. Would it help if I mention that a *nonalertable* call can be an asking bid and provide information? [Lamford] "Providing information" must therefore refer to bids that essentially give information about the hand rather than request information about the partner's hand or say nothing (such as forced relays). And common sense can usually be used to decide to which category a bid belongs. [Jerry] I accept that carrying out a forced relay may well say nothing about your hand, and it therefore provides no information. Your phrase "which category a bid belongs" makes it clear that in your estimation no bid that requests information provides any information. To show how wrong this is, I can use one of David's examples: 1S-P-4N. According you and David, 4N is an asking bid and therefore it provides no information. It should be obvious this is false, for the 4N ace-asking bid shows interest in slam. This guides the rest of the auction. For example, if there is interference, Opener will use this information about partner's slam interest to help him decide what to do. For example, choosing 6S in1S-P-4N-6H-6S is likely, whereas choosing 6S in the sequence 1S-P-P-6H-6S is rare. Ask yourself why. It is because 4N provided information about Responder's hand, even though it is indeed an asking bid. It is absurd to claim that no bid can ask and provide information at the same time. Jerry Fusselman From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 5 19:44:15 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:44:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? References: <000f01c8375a$1f131df0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001001c8376e$d66a4c80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? >I received a phone call to give a ruling from a team match being played > privately. > > The auction had gone > 1N (1) X (2) P (3) P > 2C/XX (4) P (5) P 2C > X P P P > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Penalty > (3) Alerted - forces partner to redouble (to play or single suited escape) > (4) Momentarily confused about his agreements, 2C is removed from the > bidding box. Before it is placed on the table his LHO asks about the > alert of the pass. Coming to his senses he correctly explains the > agreement, > returns the 2C to the bidding box and substitutes redouble. > (5) "Reserves his Rights" before passing. > > Result was 2C minus 4 for 1100 penalty. > > Regulations state "A call is considered to have been made when the call is > removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." > It was accepted that the 2C was removed "with intent". > > Do you allow the result to stand? What is the basis for your ruling? result stands. the partner of the 2c caller has no basis for pulling, and you have no redress for your own stupidity. John > > Thanks > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton at lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: > 04/12/2007 19:31 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Wed Dec 5 20:01:48 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:01:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:15:58 GMT." <000f01c8375a$1f131df0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com> David Barton wrote: > I received a phone call to give a ruling from a team match being played > privately. > > The auction had gone > 1N (1) X (2) P (3) P > 2C/XX (4) P (5) P 2C > X P P P > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Penalty > (3) Alerted - forces partner to redouble (to play or single suited escape) > (4) Momentarily confused about his agreements, 2C is removed from the > bidding box. Before it is placed on the table his LHO asks about the > alert of the pass. Coming to his senses he correctly explains the > agreement, > returns the 2C to the bidding box and substitutes redouble. > (5) "Reserves his Rights" before passing. > > Result was 2C minus 4 for 1100 penalty. > > Regulations state "A call is considered to have been made when the call is > removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." > It was accepted that the 2C was removed "with intent". > > Do you allow the result to stand? What is the basis for your ruling? > > Thanks I don't see any basis for adjusting anything. Opener's partner probably has UI, but we can't rule on whether he illegally took advantage of the UI if we can't even see his hand. Did they even tell you his hand over the phone? If not, then apparently nobody is claiming this is a UI issue. There aren't any other issues; there may or may not have been a change of call from 2C to XX, but opener's LHO condoned the call, so that's no longer an issue either---if LHO thought he retained the right to apply Law 25B later by saying he "reserved his rights", he needs to be educated. The "reserving rights" thing is only for UI. -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 20:37:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:37:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 3, 2007 5:08 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > > > [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. > > > > [Jerry] > > > > What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > > > Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: > > > > 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) > > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") > > > > But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is > > whether 3H would have been artificial or not. Who can tell for sure > > under the new laws? Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it > > guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs. Also, in > > case it matters, it is game forcing. > > In this particular case, I would say that the call is not conventional, because > the suit implications are part of general bridge knowledge. OK, but I am talking about whether or not 3H is artificial under the *new* laws. Conventional is not even defined in the new laws, and determining whether or not a bid is conventional is irrelevant to applying Law 29C. Several posters, including Nigel and Grattan, have said that the definition of artificial in the new laws "hardly matters", but I think it clearly matters in Law 29C. [Nigel] 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. [Grattan] [...] 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. [...] [Jerry] Nevertheless, David, your analysis is helpful to me. > A player who bids > three suits in the face of partner's attempt to play NT must be short in the > fourth suit; with 5332, he would either pass or raise NT. The fourth diamond is > also an inference; with six spades, he would have bid 3S or bid 2S the second > round, and with four hearts and only three diamonds, he would have bid 2H, not > 2D, on the second round. This makes me red faced. Now I see that our 2NT bid should always alerted! The description "11--13" is inadequate. It is a slight variant of the Gittleman 2NT, and in the future I will alert it with "11--13, asking for more information, not necessarily balanced." After 2NT, Opener can show eight different categories of hands (3C puppets 3D). I suppose the fourth diamond could be an inference if 2NT was natural, as you explain, but in our case it is not an inference. Our agreement is exactly the sentence: "5341 shape or better, game forcing." I have not figured out whether or not it is alertable in the ACBL, so we alert it. ("Better" here only means that he might have a void in clubs.) > > > Here is my main question: Which denominations are in effect for laws > > 30, 31, and 32? Hearts, even though hearts was named? Diamonds, > > because now we are assured there are at least four diamonds? Clubs, > > because the call promises a singleton or void in clubs? Spades, > > because the alert happened to include the word spades? > > Hearts are the relevant denomination, because this bid's primary message was > about hearts, and the holdings in the other suits are secondary inferences. > > This applies even to clearly natural calls: 1C-1H-2D is a bid everyone agrees is > natural, but it also carries information about four suits; it shows at least > four diamonds, longer clubs than diamonds, and denies four cards in either > major. If it is out of turn, the penalty applies only to diamonds, even though > the 1C opening could have been three cards (two in some styles) without the 2D > bid and is now known to be five. > But it is not yet clear to me that "primary message" is a concept that is relevant to the definition of artificial in the new laws. Furthermore, the word used in the new definition of artificial is "information", and secondary inferences are information by definition. This is the definition in the new laws: "Artificial call ? is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." Is it too late to fix it? Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 5 22:52:43 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:52:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <47571DAB.4030807@ntlworld.com> [David Barton] I received a phone call to give a ruling from a team match being played privately. The auction had gone 1N(1) _X(2) _P(3) P 2C XX(4) _P(5) _P 2C X AP (1) 12-14 (2) Penalty (3) Alerted - forces partner to redouble (to play or single suited escape) (4) Momentarily confused about his agreements, 2C is removed from the bidding box. Before it is placed on the table his LHO asks about the alert of the pass. Coming to his senses he correctly explains the agreement, returns the 2C to the bidding box and substitutes redouble. (5) "Reserves his Rights" before passing. Result was 2C minus 4 for 1100 penalty. Regulations state "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." It was accepted that the 2C was removed "with intent". Do you allow the result to stand? What is the basis for your ruling? {nige1] I hope that John Probst and Adam Beneschan are wrong. When opener changed his bid from 2C to XX, the next player "reserved his rights". In a private match, played at home, can you treat this this as the attempted equivalent of a director call? Had a director been called at this point, wouldn't he rule that the 2C bid must stay because it was a slip of the *mind* not of the *hand*? In order to rule to keep the final result -- 2CX-4 by the other side -- IMO, you have to judge that the change of call was "condoned"; but was it really condoned? I hope that the director would be allowed to scrap the board - without penalty - since both sides were at fault for not asking for a ruling after the *original* irregularity. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 03:14:07 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:14:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712051814j2019dc83i2b87c4cdd0b159ff@mail.gmail.com> [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. [Jerry] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? Maybe an example helps. Some of you did not like the previous example so well, so here is a new one. North opens 2C artificial and forcing. EW play basically the same defense against artificial, forcing openings of 1C and 2C. It is East's turn to call, but West gets excited and bids 1D, both insufficient and out of rotation. He remembered that the same defense in effect as over their 1C artificial, but he just forgot that he needed 2D to be sufficient. In EW's system against the artificial forcing club, the cheapest diamond call both show one of two possible hands: Either long hearts, or a two-suited hand with both black suits. Whichever of the two hands he has, he (West) probably has fewer than four diamonds. Also, if pass is next, Advancer (East) must relay to hearts. By standard usage, this is obviously artificial and conventional, but standard usage is irrelevant. I am focusing on the new definition of artificial, because that definition supersedes standard usage in the new laws, as Grattan has mentioned. I wish we could agree that this diamond bid is artificial under the new laws. I guess David Burn would say that 1D provides no information whatsoever about West's hand, because there is no one definitive statement about what West has shown. Also, perhaps, he thinks is provides no information about West's hand because the main message of the diamond bid right now is that partner must take it out with a relay to hearts. Nevertheless, I will assume 1D is artificial under the new laws. David Burn is right that if the call provides no information whatsoever, it cannot be artificial under the new laws. But it sure seems to me that the 1D bid provides information, and that it is artificial by the new definition. Anyway, assuming it is artificial, and in light of Law 29C, which denominations are specified by the diamond bid, and why? That is, which denominations do the provisions of Laws 30, 31, and 32 apply to? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 03:35:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:35:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information > about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands > that can make the bid. Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid > provides no information about a hand simply because the information it > provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less. Okay, Jerry, I'll play your game. In the spirit of full disclosure, when you ask me what our agreement is regarding partner's 2C response to my 1NT opener in an uncontested auction, you will get this reply: "This is an asking bid. Partner wants further information from me, particularly about my major suit holdings. He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP. Fewer than six spades. Fewer than six hearts. 0-13 diamonds, 0-13 clubs. He may be balanced or unbalanced." I don't believe I can tell you anything more specific about partner's hand until I hear his rebid. I could speculate, along the lines of "if he has this minor suit holding, he has that strength," and so on, but it seems to me that such speculation goes far beyond what the principle of full disclosure requires. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 04:51:27 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:51:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry Fusselman] > It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information > about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands > that can make the bid. Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid > provides no information about a hand simply because the information it > provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less. [Ed] Okay, Jerry, I'll play your game. In the spirit of full disclosure, when you ask me what our agreement is regarding partner's 2C response to my 1NT opener in an uncontested auction, you will get this reply: "This is an asking bid. Partner wants further information from me, particularly about my major suit holdings. He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP. Fewer than six spades. Fewer than six hearts. 0-13 diamonds, 0-13 clubs. He may be balanced or unbalanced." I don't believe I can tell you anything more specific about partner's hand until I hear his rebid. I could speculate, along the lines of "if he has this minor suit holding, he has that strength," and so on, but it seems to me that such speculation goes far beyond what the principle of full disclosure requires. [Jerry] Not sure what you mean by "game." I never said anything in this thread about full disclosure. (By the way, in bridge, "full disclosure" is an oxymoron, because you always know more than you can articulate.) Instead, I said that ordinary Stayman provides information at the same time it requests it. I never said it was always easy to summarize the information a call provides. But a difficulty in summarizing information is not the same thing as no information. Your summary of the information provided by ordinary Stayman is not very complete, but I admit that it is rather difficult to do a good job. I will take a shot at it. I think the information content of ordinary Stayman is largely determined by four things: A. Is 2NT a natural invitation? B. Do you play Jacoby transfers? C. When the Staymaner rebids 3 of a minor, is it always weak? D. If the uncontested auction goes 1N-2C-2H-3N, is Opener expected to convert to spades if he is 4-4 or better in the majors? Suppose the answer to all four of these is "yes." Here is what I would say is the information content of ordinary Stayman. Staymaner has one of the following: 1. a weak hand that is three-suited or nearly so with short clubs (Garbage Stayman); 2. a weak hand with lots of a single minor (but possibly with a four-card major, and Staymaner will probably sign off in 3m); 3. an invitational hand with at least one four-card major (but not 4 spades with 5 hearts, because that invitational hand would have used 1N-2D*-2H-2S); 4. a game-forcing hand with at least one four-card major. (If Responder is 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors and is game forcing, then the next bid, assuming no Smolen, will be 3M showing the five-card suit. On the other hand, if Responder has 5 of one major and less than 4 of the other major and wants game, then he will transfer, not use Stayman.) Ordinarily, these possibilities would not be explained immediately after 2C is bid, but 1--4 is an example of the information content of ordinary Stayman, here assuming that the answers to A--D are all yes. I am not claiming that anyone should memorize these or alert these or disclose these. I am saying this: It is absurd to argue that there is no information content whatsoever of ordinary Stayman. Roughly half the hands opposite a 1NT opener would find it worthwhile to bid Stayman, and roughly a half would never dream of it, which proves that there is information content in Stayman. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Dec 6 05:52:31 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:52:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4757800F.2020605@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] Okay, Jerry, I'll play your game. In the spirit of full disclosure, when you ask me what our agreement is regarding partner's 2C response to my 1NT opener in an uncontested auction, you will get this reply: "This is an asking bid. Partner wants further information from me, particularly about my major suit holdings. He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP. Fewer than six spades. Fewer than six hearts. 0-13 diamonds, 0-13 clubs. He may be balanced or unbalanced." I don't believe I can tell you anything more specific about partner's hand until I hear his rebid. I could speculate, along the lines of "if he has this minor suit holding, he has that strength," and so on, but it seems to me that such speculation goes far beyond what the principle of full disclosure requires. [Nige1] For me the answer would simple. Stayman usually shows ... - "Scramble" with a weak hand and at least 3 spades OR - Game interest with at least one 4-5 card major OR - Game force with at least one 4-5 card minor. I can categorically rule out most of the hands on which Ed uses Stayman. For example ... - 7+card minors - 5+5+ in the minors - and so on. I sympathise with Ed's disclosure problem. If you consider other auctions like 2H-2N (Relays) 1H-4N (Asking bids like RKCB) (1C)X (Take-out doubles) 1H(1S)2S (UCBs) 1H-2D-; 2S-3C (4SFs) Then it is obvious that Ed has a good point. I still feel, however, that according to the law, we should do the best that we can. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 06:44:19 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:44:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Roughly half the hands opposite a 1NT opener would find it > worthwhile to bid > Stayman, and roughly a half would never dream of it, which proves that > there is information content in Stayman. I have no idea if these figures are correct, but never mind. It seems that *any* call has some information content. Okay. So what? I confess I no longer have any idea what the hell we're talking about in this thread. :-/ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 07:27:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:27:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712052227v2080b993t99730002446b277d@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 5, 2007 11:44 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Roughly half the hands opposite a 1NT opener would find it > > worthwhile to bid > > Stayman, and roughly a half would never dream of it, which proves that > > there is information content in Stayman. > > I have no idea if these figures are correct, but never mind. It seems > that *any* call has some information content. > > Okay. So what? I confess I no longer have any idea what the hell > we're talking about in this thread. :-/ > [Jerry] Figures? What figures? Roughly is roughly. Besides, the figures would depend on many things, such as how strong the NT Opener is, whether you play transfers, etc.. I am pleased your position has changed from 6 days ago: [Ed] Seems to me David is right here. 2C does not in itself convey any specific information about responder's hand. [Jerry] Now, as you just mentioned, you agree with me that 2C Stayman conveys information. I will try summarize what is going on for you. My main question is given by the title of the thread. It is a very specific question. But it cannot be answered without referring to the new laws. The side issue discussed above was David Burn's statement that Stayman conveys no information whatsoever. I see that you have changed your position in the last six days to agree that Stayman conveys information even though it is an asking bid. Don't know if David's position has changed. In the original post, I asserted that the new laws, unfortunately, makes ordinary Stayman not artificial. (And David Burn agreed with my conclusion, though for different reasons.) No one bothered to disagree with my assertion, except Richard Hills. But I think I have carefully rebutted Richard's position that Law 29C is somehow more relevant to understanding the definition of artificial than the actual definition in the new laws. I think I showed that Law 29C says nothing about what is artificial. No one, not even Richard, has argued that the new definition of artificial makes Stayman artificial. I find it amazing that no one has even tried, though I agree that it probably can't be done. And I think this problem makes the new definition of artificial suboptimal. I, naively perhaps, hope it can be fixed well before 2017. Jerry Fusselman From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Dec 6 08:13:24 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:13:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?What_does_=22specified=22_mean_in_Law_29C?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712051814j2019dc83i2b87c4cdd0b159ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712051814j2019dc83i2b87c4cdd0b159ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1J0AvE-1sSDA00@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > [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. > > [Jerry] > > What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > Maybe an example helps. ?Some of you did not like the previous example > so well, so here is a new one. ?North opens 2C artificial and forcing. > ?EW play basically the same defense against artificial, forcing > openings of 1C and 2C. ?It is East's turn to call, but West gets > excited and bids 1D, both insufficient and out of rotation. [snip] [Peter] I do not like this one either, esp. I do not see any sense in it (sorry). East is barred for the rest of the tournament, so nobody cares (at this moment) about the the meaning of West's bid. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 08:41:56 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:41:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <1J0AvE-1sSDA00@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712051814j2019dc83i2b87c4cdd0b159ff@mail.gmail.com> <1J0AvE-1sSDA00@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712052341t1f64f36esbe405c27eb9fb0c9@mail.gmail.com> Ah, Peter is joking. Barred for the tournament. OK, perhaps Peter can make an excellent example showing what "specified" means in Law 29C. Can you do it in a way that keeps to the title of the thread? Jerry Fusselman From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Dec 6 09:25:44 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?What_does_=22specified=22_mean_in_Law_29C?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712052341t1f64f36esbe405c27eb9fb0c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <47BDFA574C984D559835D9B116A225FD@erdos> <2b1e598b0712051137q2a193b2q5ec71e5838e93577@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712051814j2019dc83i2b87c4cdd0b159ff@mail.gmail.com> <1J0AvE-1sSDA00@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <2b1e598b0712052341t1f64f36esbe405c27eb9fb0c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1J0C3E-03Q0hs0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Ah, Peter is joking. ?Barred for the tournament. > > OK, perhaps Peter can make an excellent example showing what > "specified" means in Law 29C. ? Can you do it in a way that keeps to > the title of the thread? [Peter] ok, I'll try to give some examples, that are consistent with the title of the thread, which means, they are not insufficient. 1. easy one Partner opens 1NT and before RHO makes a call you bid 2H showing spades. Now, if East doubles, showing an (unspecified) singlesuiter, you may bid spades at any level (from 2 up) to bar partner once. 2. a pass of an artificial call LHO opens 1NT and partner bids 2D, showing either a heart- or a spade-singlesuiter. Now you pass, before East has made his call. This pass specifies diamonds. 3. 2 suits LHO opens 1H, partner passes and you bid OOT 3C, showing spades and clubs. Now LHO does not accept and RHO bids 2H. If you have a call in your system that specifies spades and clubs, you may make it, leading to Law 31 A2a. Failing with partner has to pass throughout. 4. unable to repeat an unspecified denomination LHO opens 1S, partner passes and you bid OOT 2S, showing hearts and an unspecified minor. LHO does not accept and RHO bids 2S. In this case there is never a way that leads to Law 31 A2a, because the second suit is not specified and therefore cannot by repeated. Even, if you have a toy, that shows hearts and a minor now, your partner will be barred now. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 6 09:47:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:47:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: <47571DAB.4030807@ntlworld.com> References: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com> <47571DAB.4030807@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4757B731.8070404@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [David Barton] > I received a phone call to give a ruling from a team match being > played privately. The auction had gone > 1N(1) _X(2) _P(3) P > 2C > XX(4) _P(5) _P 2C > X AP > (1) 12-14 > (2) Penalty > (3) Alerted - forces partner to redouble (to play or single suited escape) > (4) Momentarily confused about his agreements, 2C is removed from the > bidding box. Before it is placed on the table his LHO asks about the > alert of the pass. Coming to his senses he correctly explains the > agreement, returns the 2C to the bidding box and substitutes redouble. > (5) "Reserves his Rights" before passing. > > Result was 2C minus 4 for 1100 penalty. > > Regulations state "A call is considered to have been made when the > call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." It was > accepted that the 2C was removed "with intent". > > Do you allow the result to stand? What is the basis for your ruling? > > {nige1] > I hope that John Probst and Adam Beneschan are wrong. > > When opener changed his bid from 2C to XX, the next player "reserved > his rights". In a private match, played at home, can you treat this > this as the attempted equivalent of a director call? > > The conditions of contest should specify this, but I hope we can. That's more or less the way Belgium T4 matches are played below 1st division level. One could perhaps suggest that each team own a copy of TFLB. L25 is not very intricated and they could perhaps heve solved it right then. But, apart from that, I'm indeed tempted to understand "I reserve my rights" as "I do something to let the match go on, but I'd like an external TD to look at the deal and tell what would have been the most probable result of a TD call". IMHO, there are two possibilities : 1) 2C is cancelled by LHO, opener choses to pass nevertheless (L25B2b2) and the result is split : -1100 for the doubler's side and -3IMPs for the opener's. Then the COC tell us whether the results are averaged or whether the total score is less than 30 VPs. 2) 2C is accepted and becomes the final contract, as partner is barred. We know that 2) would have been more successful for the NOS, from the table result, but we don't necessarily need to state it would have been the NOS's decision. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 6 10:29:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:29:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com> <001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com> <2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com> <000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com> <2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com> <1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4757C0EC.2080901@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information >> about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands >> that can make the bid. Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid >> provides no information about a hand simply because the information it >> provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less. > > Okay, Jerry, I'll play your game. > > In the spirit of full disclosure, when you ask me what our agreement > is regarding partner's 2C response to my 1NT opener in an uncontested > auction, you will get this reply: "This is an asking bid. Partner > wants further information from me, particularly about my major suit > holdings. He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP. Fewer than > six spades. Fewer than six hearts. 0-13 diamonds, 0-13 clubs. He may > be balanced or unbalanced." > > I don't believe I can tell you anything more specific about partner's > hand until I hear his rebid. I could speculate, along the lines of > "if he has this minor suit holding, he has that strength," and so on, > but it seems to me that such speculation goes far beyond what the > principle of full disclosure requires. > And you would be wrong in that. You call it speculation, but it's hardly that. It's a subset of hands, categorized by statements like -if he has minors, it's that strength. Full disclosure means just that: full disclosure. Your opponents are entitled to know all that. Of course, in real life, they cannot be interested in all that - it's far too much and too vague an information. Therefore, in real life, an answer like "I don't know much know, ask me again next round" is acceptable, and will be accepted. But it is not what full disclosure requires. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 6 11:43:30 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:43:30 EST Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/12/2007 18:23:54 GMT Standard Time, jfusselman at gmail.com writes: >It is absurd to claim that no bid can ask and provide information at >the same time. [Paul Lamford] I made no such claim. A bid can belong to more than one category, or to none, such as the passes after 7NT-Dble-Redouble. A plumber may appear in a trade directory under both "water heater fitters" and "bathroom installers", or he might not be in either. People who begin sentences with 'Your phrase "which category a bid belongs" makes it clear that in your estimation' often mean: "I shall put a few more words in your mouth so that what you wrote fits in more with the point I am trying to make" Then you go on to refute the hypothesis that you yourself have manufactured. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 6 12:07:41 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:07:41 EST Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 06/12/2007 02:35:37 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: "He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP." [Paul Lamford] I think you mean "40-the minimum point range for my bid". Otherwise Stayman can also be used as a range enquiry against someone who always asks for further information. Of course the explanation will be UI, won't it. And, as I am being pedantic, I am surprised someone has not pointed out an error in my earlier example that the passes after 7NT-Double-Redouble were wrongly described as bids instead of calls. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 6 13:00:38 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:00:38 -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><2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com><1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com><2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712052227v2080b993t99730002446b277d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003501c837ff$c14ebc50$afd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In the original post, I asserted that the new laws, > unfortunately, makes ordinary Stayman not artificial. > (And David Burn agreed with my conclusion, though > for different reasons.) No one bothered to disagree > with my assertion, except Richard Hills. < +=+ I disagree with the assertion. I did not bother to argue it because it was evident from my comment. In my opinion 'information' includes presumptive information, as for example the presumption that the caller is interested in information a call has requested, or again the understanding that in making a bid such as a relay bid, partner has one of the types of hands on which he will make that bid as a matter of partnership understanding. [ 'Information' = "knowledge acquired" (sic) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 6 13:04:50 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:04:50 EST Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? Message-ID: In a message dated 05/12/2007 21:53:25 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [nige1] >In order to rule to keep the final result -- 2CX-4 by the other side >-- IMO, you have to judge that the change of call was "condoned"; but >was it really condoned? [Paul Lamford] If the next person bids over it, then it has to be treated as condoned. The board could easily have been set aside and a referee telephoned during the break for refreshments (I hope these were being provided) or at the end of the match. Or even there and then in the middle of the auction. To amend the result now would, in my view, be no different to a recent Crockfords match at a London Club, where a team, trailing by 64 IMPs at half-time, wanted the first 16 boards replayed as they had not been hand-dealt at the table, as required by the rules. Instead the club's duplimated boards had been used. They were given short shrift by a referee, but were allowed to hand deal the remaining 16 boards. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 6 13:20:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:20:04 -0000 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><000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com><2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com><1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com><2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005701c83805$79244070$afd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >. It seems that *any* call has some information content. > +=+ Agreed - on the basis that it is made in conformity with partnership understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Dec 6 14:04:51 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:04:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4757F373.5030703@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] If the next person bids over it, then it has to be treated as condoned. The board could easily have been set aside and a referee telephoned during the break for refreshments (I hope these were being provided) or at the end of the match. Or even there and then in the middle of the auction. To amend the result now would, in my view, be no different to a recent Crockfords match at a London Club, where a team, trailing by 64 IMPs at half-time, wanted the first 16 boards replayed as they had not been hand-dealt at the table, as required by the rules. Instead the club's duplimated boards had been used. They were given short shrift by a referee, but were allowed to hand deal the remaining 16 boards. [nige1] IMO opener's LHO was trying to say ... [A] I'm unsure of the law but ... [B] If a director were available, I'd call him. [C] If opener's 2C rebid was intended then the attempted change is subject to penalty. If opener's 2C was inadvertent then the change to XX is OK. That is a matter of contention but ... [D] I won't hold up the game. I'll just reserve my rights because I don't want to appear to condone the change of call." The laws are so complex and sophisticated that they are hard for directors to understand. Director's interpretations sometimes differ and their judgements often differ. It is even harder for ordinary players. In the absence of a director, an occasional mistake in legal procedure is inevitable. I've suffered in similar incidents in home matches: After a few tricks, declarer put his cards back in the slot and wrote down the score for contract made. In spite of repeated requests he refused to face his hand or declare a line of play. Declarer habitually used this tactic to waste time and disconcert opponents. It was quite effective. We had no idea what to do and we were working the next day. Eventually, we "reserved out rights" and got on with the next board. We lost a match that we should have won. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 4 13:47:51 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:47:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "Faith, that's as well said > as if I had said it myself." > ['Polite Conversation'] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > > >> I have seen definitions of "natural" that apply to opening bids. I >> see no reason why those definitions should apply to a suit bid on the >> third round. Opener's first bid shows 5+ spades, his second 4+ >> diamonds (unless he's manufacturing a bid for some reason), his >> third, well, if we require it to show 4+ hearts in order not to be >> artificial, then a natural suit bid on the third round in just about >> any auction is *almost always* going to be artificial. I don't buy it. >> >> > +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not > artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!) > use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined. > It could be a good idea to state that : 1) inferences about the length held in some suit(s) (because there are only 13 cards in any given hand, or because of the order in which the suits were bid) do not make the bid artificial nor conventional.. 2) transmitting *less* information than would be done by a "classical" bid doesn't make the bid artificial (but might make it alertable) ; for example, those who systematically open 1D on 4D+5C and a minimum don't use an artficial 2C rebid just because it could be either longer suit. 3) however, a bid "linked to a suit" could be artificial, even if it doesn't say anything (more than is already known) about other suits. For example, if after opening a weak 2-bid you answer your singleton over the relay. Other generic statements oriented towards jurisprudency could help, too. One example about which I'm in doubt is in relay auctions, when you happen to hold the suit you bid. 1C* 1S** 1NT@ 2D # * strong ** some point range or number of controls @ relay # diamonds and a major, possibly longer in the major In this case, if 2D was insufficient (they overcalled over 1NT), I'd treat the D suit as specified, and no other suit as specified, although one knows the player holds one major. However, UI could be strong. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071204/3d8ae7dd/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 6 12:05:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:05:45 EST Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 06/12/2007 02:35:37 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: "He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP." [Paul Lamford] I think you mean "40-the minimum point range for my bid". Otherwise Stayman can also be used as a range enquiry against someone who always asks for further information. Of course the explanation will be UI, won't it. And, as I am being pedantic, I am surprised someone has not pointed out an error in my earlier example that the passes after 7NT-Double-Redouble were wrongly described as bids instead of calls. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071206/eeb9f0a3/attachment.htm From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 16:49:57 2007 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:49:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2007 7:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "Faith, that's as well said > as if I had said it myself." > ['Polite Conversation'] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > > > > I have seen definitions of "natural" that apply to opening bids. I > see no reason why those definitions should apply to a suit bid on the > third round. Opener's first bid shows 5+ spades, his second 4+ > diamonds (unless he's manufacturing a bid for some reason), his > third, well, if we require it to show 4+ hearts in order not to be > artificial, then a natural suit bid on the third round in just about > any auction is *almost always* going to be artificial. I don't buy it. > > > +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not > artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!) > use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined. > > It could be a good idea to state that : > 1) inferences about the length held in some suit(s) (because there are > only 13 cards in any given hand, or because of the order in which the suits > were bid) do not make the bid artificial nor conventional.. > 2) transmitting *less* information than would be done by a "classical" bid > doesn't make the bid artificial (but might make it alertable) ; for example, > those who systematically open 1D on 4D+5C and a minimum don't use an > artficial 2C rebid just because it could be either longer suit. > 3) however, a bid "linked to a suit" could be artificial, even if it > doesn't say anything (more than is already known) about other suits. For > example, if after opening a weak 2-bid you answer your singleton over the > relay. > > Other generic statements oriented towards jurisprudency could help, too. > > One example about which I'm in doubt is in relay auctions, when you happen > to hold the suit you bid. > 1C* 1S** > 1NT@ 2D # > > * strong > ** some point range or number of controls > @ relay > # diamonds and a major, possibly longer in the major > > In this case, if 2D was insufficient (they overcalled over 1NT), I'd treat > the D suit as specified, and no other suit as specified, although one knows > the player holds one major. However, UI could be strong. It strikes me that "forcing" and "artificial" might be synonyms in some sense: If a bid (not sure about X XX or P) is by agreement forcing then it is by definition not an offer to play in the strain-level combination it specifies. Collins > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 6 22:34:58 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:34:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? In-Reply-To: <005701c83805$79244070$afd6403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0711271752q2fc691e3t93224f26770e6176@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0711281345i4e769637ya1ab59a8b7929507@mail.gmail.com><001001c832cc$9516dd80$bf449880$@com><2b1e598b0711291345l4c646ea6j8fe0322cc891d3@mail.gmail.com><000301c83346$1383ef40$3a8bcdc0$@com><2b1e598b0712050021v57c19dbcq223ce3db1f6f3eb1@mail.gmail.com><1F54A05A-19C0-4956-AB0C-03D26A318E3B@rochester.rr.com><2b1e598b0712051951i303c4168v6fb3064c2ff772da@mail.gmail.com> <005701c83805$79244070$afd6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <50531427-65A0-4204-B49A-C6D5EC883B6A@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:20 AM, wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" > >> . It seems that *any* call has some information content. > > +=+ Agreed - on the basis that it is made in conformity > with partnership understanding. It seems clear that whoever wrote L27C1 assumed that any call -- at least until 7NT has been bid -- perforce "incorporates" some information content. Which suggests that "the Law" so assumes in general. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 22:56:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:56:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > It strikes me that "forcing" and "artificial" might be synonyms in > some sense: > If a bid (not sure about X XX or P) is by agreement forcing then it is > by definition not an offer to play in the strain-level combination > it specifies. Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to play in the denomination named or last named. Not all forcing bids are artificial, though, so "forcing" and "artificial" are not synonyms. A call cannot be both artificial and not artificial. Can it be neither? A call cannot be both natural and not natural. Can it be neither? Can a call be both natural and artificial? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 23:00:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:00:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: <4757B731.8070404@ulb.ac.be> References: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com> <47571DAB.4030807@ntlworld.com> <4757B731.8070404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> [David Barton] >> >> When opener changed his bid from 2C to XX, the next player "reserved >> his rights". In a private match, played at home, can you treat this >> this as the attempted equivalent of a director call? >> > The conditions of contest should specify this, but I hope we can. > That's > more or less the way Belgium T4 matches are played below 1st > division level. What happens in Belgium has no bearing on what should happen in England, of course. What *do* the CoC say for these things? I'm pretty sure they say *something*. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 23:04:48 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:04:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C2E9BA9-B899-40D1-A1FE-7F04600DA7F8@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > I think you mean "40-the minimum point range for my bid". > Otherwise Stayman > can also be used as a range enquiry against someone who always > asks for > further information. Of course the explanation will be UI, won't it. I meant what I wrote. I don't understand the last two sentences of your paragraph above. Unless you think I meant the phrase as "35 points" when I have 15 and "33 points" when I have 17. I do know better than to say that. :-/ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:09:09 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:09:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> Ed Reppert writes > > Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to > play in the denomination named or last named. > You're confusing "denomination" with "contract". The auction 1S-P-2H can be forcing and an offer to play the contract in the denomination of hearts. So forcing calls can indeed be offers to play in the denomination named. > Not all forcing bids are artificial, though, so "forcing" and > "artificial" are not synonyms. > True. > A call cannot be both artificial and not artificial. Can it be neither? No. The definition of "not artificial" is "not "artificial"". > A call cannot be both natural and not natural. Can it be neither? > Natural is not defined in laws, though it still appears, undefined, in a footnote to law 75. But the answer is still no. > Can a call be both natural and artificial? > The common usage is that natural means not artificial, so by common usage, no. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 23:25:26 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:25:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? In-Reply-To: <4757F373.5030703@ntlworld.com> References: <4757F373.5030703@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <8BCA9A66-B4BE-4937-8A44-FF17ED5EE7C2@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Guthrie wrote: > I've suffered in similar incidents in home matches: After a few > tricks, declarer put his cards back in the slot and wrote down the > score for contract made. In spite of repeated requests he refused to > face his hand or declare a line of play. Declarer habitually used this > tactic to waste time and disconcert opponents. It was quite effective. > We had no idea what to do and we were working the next day. > Eventually, we "reserved out rights" and got on with the next board. > We lost a match that we should have won. I suggest you read section 162 of the White Book, in particular 162.3. I think it's nuts to let somebody get away with this kind of crap. Ask for a ruling. If he habitually does this kind of thing, particularly for the reasons you allege, submit a player memo, or follow whatever other procedure EBU or county rules specify, *every time* he does it. Yeah, it's a pain. So what? There's a procedure for dealing with this kind of thing. Either you follow the procedure, or you don't bitch when he does it. The laws specify that if you want a ruling, you ask a director to give you one. The EBU has established procedures for doing that in county level matches played in homes. So either you ask for a ruling, or you live with the consequences. If you think you got stuffed because you didn't know the rules, then *find out what the rules are*. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 23:28:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:28:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <08A046AE-60C6-4EA1-91C1-11353A7C3635@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Ed Reppert writes >> >> Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to >> play in the denomination named or last named. >> > > You're confusing "denomination" with "contract". The auction 1S-P-2H > can be forcing and an offer to play the contract in the denomination > of hearts. So forcing calls can indeed be offers to play in the > denomination named. Sorry. The phrase used in the message to which I replied was "strain and level". I should have specified the same. IOW, if 2H is forcing in the above auction, it is not an offer to play in 2H. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 6 23:30:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:30:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <65491390-4BEB-47C3-A8E7-A64A800EF04F@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The common usage is that natural means not artificial, so by common > usage, no. Is the common usage correct? IOW, is it what the lawmakers intended? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:35:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:35:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <08A046AE-60C6-4EA1-91C1-11353A7C3635@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> <08A046AE-60C6-4EA1-91C1-11353A7C3635@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712061435r2e170b87r8a61deb771bba84d@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 4:28 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Ed Reppert writes > >> > >> Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to > >> play in the denomination named or last named. > >> > > > > You're confusing "denomination" with "contract". The auction 1S-P-2H > > can be forcing and an offer to play the contract in the denomination > > of hearts. So forcing calls can indeed be offers to play in the > > denomination named. > > Sorry. The phrase used in the message to which I replied was "strain > and level". I should have specified the same. IOW, if 2H is forcing > in the above auction, it is not an offer to play in 2H. > Yes, the previous poster misled you in a way. The 2007 laws contain this: "Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." So this is the new definition of artificial. It contains no reference to level. Thus, 2H can be both forcing and nonartificial. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:50:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:50:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <65491390-4BEB-47C3-A8E7-A64A800EF04F@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> <65491390-4BEB-47C3-A8E7-A64A800EF04F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712061450y1574761cj88e449b5a1e7b7d2@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2007 4:30 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > The common usage is that natural means not artificial, so by common > > usage, no. > > Is the common usage correct? IOW, is it what the lawmakers intended? > These are two separate questions. The 2007 lawmakers apparently did not intent to define natural, because they didn't. Three days ago, Grattan wrote this: > +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not > artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!) > use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have a feeling that the lawmakers don't mind if natural and artificial are perfect antonyms. Conventional is not defined in the 2007 laws either. In common usage, conventional and artificial are two different dimensions admitting all four possible classifications (including both and neither). In the 1997 laws, conventional was defined, natural was not, and I was unable to find anywhere where artificial was defined. Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 6 23:58:36 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:58:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27 (again) In-Reply-To: <200712031854.lB3IsJP1013946@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712031854.lB3IsJP1013946@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47587E9C.3040900@nhcc.net> [catching up on old messages; sorry for delay] > Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >> I opened 1NT (strong) and >>LHO bid 1C, immediately saying, "Oh, I didn't see you bid", >>and replaced the 1C by double before I could say anything. > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > i think you were wrong to allow the alteration to double. the condition > for the replacement call to incorporate the information inbedded in > the initial bid, means that the set of hands compatible with the > replacement call is a subset of the set of hands compatible with the > initial call. i think it was not the case here, rather the opposite. for > example AK2,Q4,KJ975,J106 may be a double of 1NT and not a 1C opening. I'm with Jean-Pierre. There are lots of hands that will double 1NT but not open 1C, perhaps most obviously strong hands with a good suit (other than clubs) to lead. Also hands the intervenor would have opened 1NT (as perhaps J-P's example if you make it a point or so stronger). The 1C IB rules out all those possibilities, and thus double should not be allowed even under the new Laws. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 23:53:56 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:53:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712061450y1574761cj88e449b5a1e7b7d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061409u2a0dbdf7x4151cc29d2c94b31@mail.gmail.com> <65491390-4BEB-47C3-A8E7-A64A800EF04F@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712061450y1574761cj88e449b5a1e7b7d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712061453m74ebf78cv31715412ea59855d@mail.gmail.com> I really like Nigel's definitions of these terms: [Nigel] "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". From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 7 00:10:08 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:10:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49andconsequences In-Reply-To: <200712032141.lB3LfMe7009840@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712032141.lB3LfMe7009840@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47588150.5040806@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > Both Law 24 and Law 49 use the phrase:" ... card or cards are in a position > ...", how they got into this position is immaterial. > So whether the card(s) became visible from being accidentally dropped, from > being boxed in the board or simply by being played does not matter except > for how the situation is subsequently handled. Isn't "how the situation is subsequently hanldled" the point of the discussion? "How" can certainly matter under both the old Laws and new ones. Old L24 includes the words "because of a player's action." Thus if the caddy drops the cards face up, it doesn't apply. I would say the same about a card face up in the board when it arrives ("boxed") unless there is a specific rule requiring players to count their cards out of partner's view. The new L24 changes the wording to "because of a player?s own error." While it is open for interpretation what constitutes an error, outside agency and pre-existing conditions must be excluded. As Sven says, there are no such qualifications in L49, though an adjusted score to protect defenders would be normal if the exposure was somehow caused by the declaring side's irregularity. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 7 00:16:46 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:16:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <200712032149.lB3LnTUJ012357@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712032149.lB3LnTUJ012357@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <475882DE.1020806@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Kxx > xx > xxx > Q10xxx > > The unobstructed sequence would be, with some of my former partners : 1C > (strong) - 1D (weak) - 1S (4+ cards) - 2C (exactly 3 spades, at least a > little something, and passable with longer clubs than spades). Now they > tell me RHO has bid 2D over 1S. I'd like to bid 2S, but partner might > think -wrongly- that I hold 4 of them. A TO double isn't a good idea > with only 2 hearts and a non-maximum. > But the new rules tell me I'm allowed to bid 2S without penalty > (referring only to spades, too) and partner will be remembered I could > do it on a 3-card in a pinch. This is a L27 problem, nothing to do with L29C. What would your 2S bid have meant over 2D with no 2C bid? Unless it shows three-card spade support and a club suit, the 2S bid will come under L27D, and opener will be required to pass throughout. The 2C bid gave information not "incorporated" in the 2S bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 7 00:35:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:35:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4757F373.5030703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >I've suffered in similar incidents in home matches: After a few >tricks, declarer put his cards back in the slot and wrote down the >score for contract made. In spite of repeated requests he refused >to face his hand or declare a line of play. Declarer habitually >used this tactic to waste time and disconcert opponents. It was >quite effective. We had no idea what to do and we were working the >next day. Eventually, we "reserved out rights" and got on with the >next board. We lost a match that we should have won. Richard Hills: I also would have lost that match, since I would have forfeited the match as soon as that declarer started coffee-housing. But I would also have reported that declarer to the relevant Conduct and Ethics Committee. It is difficult for a player to win home matches by judicious coffee-housing if that player has been suspended from those home matches by the local Conduct and Ethics Committee. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 7 00:44:36 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:44:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <200712032150.lB3LocCK012693@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712032150.lB3LocCK012693@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47588964.9090600@nhcc.net> > [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. For this Law, we want an expansive definition of "artificial." In fact, I don't see why the first clause is necessary at all. It seems to me the provisions should _always_ apply to the denomination specified, whether that was the one named or not. > What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? This will be a good topic for the Appendix. Usually it shouldn't be hard to tell, but there will be borderline cases. More interesting is whether a suit that is revealed to be short or weak (as opposed to long or strong) is "specified." I suspect there won't be agreement unless the Appendix addresses the issue. > Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: > > 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) > 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) > 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") > > But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is > whether 3H would have been artificial or not. As others have said, why do we care? This is a L27 case. A better example is that RHO of the 3H bidder buys the contract with a 6C bid over 2NT. (The 3H bidder didn't see the 6C bid.) Now there will be L26 lead penalties for the 3H bid. I would say the 3H bid "specifies" both hearts and diamonds (because it shows extra length in the latter), but the lead penalty per L26A2 will apply only to hearts because diamonds were "specified" in the legal auction. This doesn't seem difficult, though I suppose one could worry that clubs also might be "specified" because of the shortness there. As for the question in the other thread about the definition of "artificial," it boils down to what information is "taken for granted by players generally." My view is that this means such things as "13 cards per hand" (so if long in three suits then short in the fourth one) and "high contracts require more high cards or distribution than low ones." I certainly would not include "2C is Stayman" as "taken for granted" -- for some players it is no such thing. Is there any situation where a ruling depends on whether a call is artificial? The only thing I can find is L30C, which refers only to passes. Hmmm... there's also L31A2, which refers to pass of partner's artificial call. That could be problematic if almost every call is artificial under the definition. There's also L40B2d, allowing RA's to restrict psyching artifical calls. Presumably this now means they can restrict all psyching. Many people will be happy about that. The real problem with including the definition -- which is indeed a fairly silly one -- is that some NCBOs use "artificial" with a different definition in their alert or convention regulations. Now all those will have to be changed to avoid confusion. I'm wondering what word these organizations should adopt to replace "artificial." From david.j.barton at sky.com Fri Dec 7 10:15:31 2007 From: david.j.barton at sky.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:15:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? References: <200712051857.KAA31785@mailhub.irvine.com><47571DAB.4030807@ntlworld.com> <4757B731.8070404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701c838b1$b718c5c0$0300a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you deal with this mess? On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> [David Barton] >> >> When opener changed his bid from 2C to XX, the next player "reserved >> his rights". In a private match, played at home, can you treat this >> this as the attempted equivalent of a director call? >> > The conditions of contest should specify this, but I hope we can. > That's > more or less the way Belgium T4 matches are played below 1st > division level. What happens in Belgium has no bearing on what should happen in England, of course. What *do* the CoC say for these things? I'm pretty sure they say *something*. In the absence of any specific local CoC the applicable regulation is EBU White Book 80.6. This states - "If you think an irregularity has occurred .... you should proceed as follows: a) raise the matter (by, say, reserving your rights) at the time ....... b) ......... A failure to take these steps puts you in the same position as a player in a public competition who fails to call the TD at the appropriate time. You may still request a ruling a ruling as long as you do it within the protest period ....." The damaged side followed this this procedure EXACTLY, and in my opinion, should NOT be disadvantaged for having done so. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1176 - Release Date: 06/12/2007 23:15 From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 7 11:08:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:08:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law49andconsequences In-Reply-To: <47588150.5040806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401c838b9$1f3ee560$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ................. > Isn't "how the situation is subsequently hanldled" the point of the > discussion? "How" can certainly matter under both the old Laws and new > ones. "How" determines which of Law 24A, 24B or 24C (if any of them) applies. > > Old L24 includes the words "because of a player's action." Thus if the > caddy drops the cards face up, it doesn't apply. I would say the same > about a card face up in the board when it arrives ("boxed") unless there > is a specific rule requiring players to count their cards out of > partner's view. > > The new L24 changes the wording to "because of a player's own error." > While it is open for interpretation what constitutes an error, outside > agency and pre-existing conditions must be excluded. I understand both the old and the new Law 24 to exclude from sanctions exposure of a player's card(s) outside his control. Depending on conditions the Director may allow the board to be played, order a redeal or cancel the board for that table. I am not so sure that I shall accept exposure of boxed cards to be outside a player's control. I believe I shall rather consider that as careless handling of the cards. > As Sven says, there are no such qualifications in L49, though an > adjusted score to protect defenders would be normal if the exposure was > somehow caused by the declaring side's irregularity. I do not see how declaring side's irregularity (except by using violence) can cause exposure of a defender's card(s)? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 7 16:32:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:32:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <47588964.9090600@nhcc.net> References: <200712032150.lB3LocCK012693@cfa.harvard.edu> <47588964.9090600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> [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. > > For this Law, we want an expansive definition of "artificial." In > fact, > I don't see why the first clause is necessary at all. It seems to me > the provisions should _always_ apply to the denomination specified, > whether that was the one named or not. > >> What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? > > This will be a good topic for the Appendix. Usually it shouldn't be > hard to tell, but there will be borderline cases. More interesting is > whether a suit that is revealed to be short or weak (as opposed to > long > or strong) is "specified." I suspect there won't be agreement unless > the Appendix addresses the issue. > >> Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition: >> >> 1S (5+ spades) - 1N (forcing) >> 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13) >> 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing") >> >> But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient. The first question is >> whether 3H would have been artificial or not. > > As others have said, why do we care? This is a L27 case. > > A better example is that RHO of the 3H bidder buys the contract with a > 6C bid over 2NT. (The 3H bidder didn't see the 6C bid.) Now there > will > be L26 lead penalties for the 3H bid. I would say the 3H bid > "specifies" both hearts and diamonds (because it shows extra length in > the latter), but the lead penalty per L26A2 will apply only to hearts > because diamonds were "specified" in the legal auction. This doesn't > seem difficult, though I suppose one could worry that clubs also might > be "specified" because of the shortness there. > > As for the question in the other thread about the definition of > "artificial," it boils down to what information is "taken for granted > by players generally." My view is that this means such things as "13 > cards per hand" (so if long in three suits then short in the fourth > one) > and "high contracts require more high cards or distribution than low > ones." I certainly would not include "2C is Stayman" as "taken for > granted" -- for some players it is no such thing. > > Is there any situation where a ruling depends on whether a call is > artificial? The only thing I can find is L30C, which refers only to > passes. Hmmm... there's also L31A2, which refers to pass of partner's > artificial call. That could be problematic if almost every call is > artificial under the definition. There's also L40B2d, allowing > RA's to > restrict psyching artifical calls. Presumably this now means they can > restrict all psyching. Many people will be happy about that. > > The real problem with including the definition -- which is indeed a > fairly silly one -- is that some NCBOs use "artificial" with a > different > definition in their alert or convention regulations. Now all those > will > have to be changed to avoid confusion. I'm wondering what word these > organizations should adopt to replace "artificial." "Conventional" and "artificial" fall into the dreaded "can't quite define it but know it when we see it" category. I read the changes in terminology and definition as attempts by the lawmakers to clarify the relevant concept, reduce its potential ambiguity, and sharpen some of its fuzzy edges, rather than to make a drastic substantive change in the law (as would be, for example, a reading that makes "almost every call... artificial"). For the most part, calls that were "conventional" since 1997 will be "artificial" in 2008, and the practical distinction between "conventional" or "artificial" and "natural" will remain as it was. The real change in this area comes in L40, where the distinction no longer matters for regulatory purposes, with the minor exception in L40B2(d). The only nominal constraint on what may be regulated is the now severely restricted "right to psych" in L40C1, which reads an awful lot like the ACBL's infamous "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 7 15:41:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:41:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <87B7A71B-04CB-46EE-9DDA-F86BAB2B7385@starpower.net> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > >> It strikes me that "forcing" and "artificial" might be synonyms in >> some sense: >> If a bid (not sure about X XX or P) is by agreement forcing then >> it is >> by definition not an offer to play in the strain-level combination >> it specifies. > > Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to > play in the denomination named or last named. But most of the time it is; the definition refers only to "denomination", not contract. If it goes 1C-P-1H, the 1H bidder is patently offering hearts as a potential trump suit, albeit not offering 1H as a final contract. > Not all forcing bids are artificial, though, so "forcing" and > "artificial" are not synonyms. That seems obvious from the fact that "natural and forcing" is routinely (and appropriately) used to describe one's agreement about such bids. > A call cannot be both artificial and not artificial. Can it be > neither? > > A call cannot be both natural and not natural. Can it be neither? No and no. X <-> ~~X is an axiom of any system of logic. > Can a call be both natural and artificial? Not in my lexicon, but YMMV. "Natural" is not defined in T(new)FLB, and is used only once, in L75B, where it appears in an example rather than a definitive statement of law. So I suppose it can mean whatever you want it to. But in common English, they are used as complements (objects are generally viewed as one or the other but not both), and ISTM most bridge players use them that way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Dec 7 23:04:22 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) Message-ID: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> What is the meaning of YMMV and of ISTM? Could they be included in the list of abbreviations if they are to be further used? Thanks, JE From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 23:11:09 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:11:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> Jeff Easterson wrote: > What is the meaning of YMMV and of ISTM? Could they be included in the > list of abbreviations if they are to be further used? Thanks, JE > YMMV = Your mileage may vary. ISTM = It seems to me. They are not specific to bridge laws. Jerry Fusselman From henk at ripe.net Fri Dec 7 23:58:59 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:58:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> What is the meaning of YMMV and of ISTM? Could they be included in the >> list of abbreviations if they are to be further used? Thanks, JE >> > > > YMMV = Your mileage may vary. > > ISTM = It seems to me. > > They are not specific to bridge laws. And that's why they won't be added to the list. Henk > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 07:41:43 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:41:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712072241h19b21d57ubc6d2f9ea64f2a67@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 7, 2007 4:58 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> What is the meaning of YMMV and of ISTM? Could they be included in the > >> list of abbreviations if they are to be further used? Thanks, JE > >> > > > > > > YMMV = Your mileage may vary. > > > > ISTM = It seems to me. > > > > They are not specific to bridge laws. > > And that's why they won't be added to the list. > Why? What is the need for such purity? Deciphering ISTR is much more challenging to me that UI or AI. At least, could we add a link to a site that gives general abbreviations? Jerry Fusselman From blml at dybdal.dk Sat Dec 8 17:15:09 2007 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:15:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 Message-ID: <0nfll3to4g355m25o90ejq6tmca72g0t1f@nuser.dybdal.dk> L27C1 says "(Law 16D does not apply)" L27C2 says "At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged." I wonder why L27C2 is concerned only with damage arising from a different contract. What should the TL do if the contract could not "well have been different", but the non-offending side is damaged in the play? - either because the same contract is reached in a different way or because the offending side becomes defenders and defend better because of information from the insufficient bid. If I have overlooked a discussion of this aspect among the many BLML messages about the new L27, I apologize and would very much appreciate a pointer to that discussion. (In the Danish Bridge Federation, the new laws (http://www.bridge.dk/lov/love07) will be in force by January 1. The DBF Laws Committee is currently revising various documents with guidance for directors. We like the idea of recommending L27C1 in as many situations as at all possible, but we are not certain what we should recommend for this situation.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 8 17:57:21 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:57:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712072241h19b21d57ubc6d2f9ea64f2a67@mail.gmail.com> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> <2b1e598b0712072241h19b21d57ubc6d2f9ea64f2a67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88510BEC-527F-4977-98FB-746C2324F6D6@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 8, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Why? What is the need for such purity? Deciphering ISTR is much more > challenging to me that UI or AI. Four letters is harder than two? :-) It's not a question of purity, it's a question of space. There are a *lot* of acronyms in common use on the internet. Include them in blml's list, and the bridge related acronyms will get lost in the crowd. Not to mention the file will take up a lot more room on everyone's hard drive. > At least, could we add a link to a site that gives general > abbreviations? A common internet saying, albeit not an acronym, is "Google is your friend". I typed the words "internet acronyms" (without the quotes) in my browser's search field, and in less than a tenth of a second, I had a list of about 260,000 hits. The first one was "Internet Acronyms Dictionary", and that seems an adequate site for the purpose. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 19:04:49 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:04:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <88510BEC-527F-4977-98FB-746C2324F6D6@rochester.rr.com> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> <2b1e598b0712072241h19b21d57ubc6d2f9ea64f2a67@mail.gmail.com> <88510BEC-527F-4977-98FB-746C2324F6D6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712081004s42ee315r34130d013368c836@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 8, 2007 10:57 AM, Ed Reppert wrote > > It's not a question of purity, it's a question of space. There are a > *lot* of acronyms in common use on the internet. Include them in > blml's list, and the bridge related acronyms will get lost in the > crowd. Not to mention the file will take up a lot more room on > everyone's hard drive. I was thinking of a sort list that uses fewer byes than the paragraph you just wrote. > > > At least, could we add a link to a site that gives general > > abbreviations? > > A common internet saying, albeit not an acronym, is "Google is your > friend". I typed the words "internet acronyms" (without the quotes) > in my browser's search field, and in less than a tenth of a second, I > had a list of about 260,000 hits. The first one was "Internet > Acronyms Dictionary", and that seems an adequate site for the purpose. > But the reader does not necessarily know ahead of time that it is an Internet acronym. A link from the bottom of Henk's list is easier than opening a new window, waiting, typing www.google.com, waiting, typing "internet acronim" or similar, clicking a few more times, and wondering if this inquiry is going to work. Remember, English is not the first language of everyone on this list, though it is for me, and I have been slowed many times by the cool new acronyms. At a minimum, a good link at the bottom of Henk's list would be nice. On the other hand, we just don't use that many here. Since we are acronym heavy at BLML, a reader here is less likely to assume an unfamiliar acronym is a general one from the Internet. We have become used to Eric's fondness for these things, so it seems easy for many of us, but last night I asked a high school teacher if she knew what the Internet acronyms IMHO, ISTR, and YMMV stood for. She could not immediately remember any of them. It seems to me that Eric and whoever else uses them only use a small number. A good example came from Jesper two hours ago. He wrote "What should the TL do ..." I am about 70% sure that he meant TD---should I go look up TL on google? I suspect we on BLML should maybe voluntarily try to avoid being too creative in our use of Internet acronyms, because we have so many bridge ones. Eric is a very thoughtful writer, and I suspect he only uses a handful of the most common ones. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 8 19:52:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:52:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712081004s42ee315r34130d013368c836@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000101c839cb$8c8f6050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............. > A good example came from Jesper two hours ago. He wrote "What should > the TL do ..." I am about 70% sure that he meant TD---should I go > look up TL on google? Try it, you will get more than two million hits (I tried just for fun), some of which most likely refer to the Danish (and Norwegian) acronym for "Turneringsleder" i.e. Tournament Director. Do go ahead, build your own list of acronyms, I expect it will contain about half a million entries before you feel confident that you have covered all the acronyms of your interests. But please do not expect us others to be interested in that bunch! Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Dec 8 19:58:54 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:58:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sorry Message-ID: <475AE96E.3000206@aol.com> Sorry, didn't intend to start a discussion. Although English is my first language I don't frequently use it daily. And I am fairly new to the internet. Have almost no knowledge of abbreviations/acronyms. Some I can work out and hope I haven't made a mistake. Suspect blmlers who aren't "native speakers" might have gretaer problems. I shall try to google the puzzling acronyms in the future. Hope that will work. Hola, JE From blml at dybdal.dk Sat Dec 8 22:14:45 2007 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:14:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations (again) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712081004s42ee315r34130d013368c836@mail.gmail.com> References: <4759C366.3070604@aol.com> <2b1e598b0712071411y4d49054fjb953353ea5c7e68e@mail.gmail.com> <4759D033.8020407@ripe.net> <2b1e598b0712072241h19b21d57ubc6d2f9ea64f2a67@mail.gmail.com> <88510BEC-527F-4977-98FB-746C2324F6D6@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712081004s42ee315r34130d013368c836@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:04:49 -0600, "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: >A good example came from Jesper two hours ago. He wrote "What should >the TL do ..." I am about 70% sure that he meant TD---should I go >look up TL on google? I did indeed mean TD. It's obviously been too long since I regularly discussed bridge law in English, so the corresponding Danish abbreviation crept in. Sorry. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Dec 8 23:22:54 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:22:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? Message-ID: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 The uncontested auction is ... (1C) _P (2D) _P (3C) _P (3N) _P (4C) _P (4D) _P (4N) _P (6N) AP * Before passing, Partner says ?Is it my lead?? You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Dec 8 23:35:30 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:35:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal Message-ID: <475B1C32.1070106@ntlworld.com> Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 6N, LHO leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:42:38 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:42:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 8, 2007 5:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 > The uncontested auction is ... > (1C) _P (2D) _P > (3C) _P (3N) _P > (4C) _P (4D) _P > (4N) _P (6N) AP > * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' > You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. > Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. > Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? Here's how I would handle things: 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of cheating. Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. At this point in time, I tell him to either (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. -- "Truffle oil is the ketchup of the newly affluent" - Anthony Bourdain From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:42:38 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:42:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 8, 2007 5:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 > The uncontested auction is ... > (1C) _P (2D) _P > (3C) _P (3N) _P > (4C) _P (4D) _P > (4N) _P (6N) AP > * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' > You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. > Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. > Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? Here's how I would handle things: 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of cheating. Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. At this point in time, I tell him to either (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. -- "Truffle oil is the ketchup of the newly affluent" - Anthony Bourdain From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 00:58:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:58:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <475B1C32.1070106@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c839f6$380aa960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 6N, LHO > leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy > plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last > card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last > trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. As long as RHO didn't grasp the opportunity and demanded Dummy to discard the D6 (which was his privilege of course when Declarer said "play anything" or words to that effect!) the defense has no case for any adjustment afterwards. Apparently they set the slam anyway. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 01:15:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:15:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c839f8$9f114180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard willey > On Dec 8, 2007 5:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > > You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 > > The uncontested auction is ... > > (1C) _P (2D) _P > > (3C) _P (3N) _P > > (4C) _P (4D) _P > > (4N) _P (6N) AP > > * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' > > You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. > > Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. > > Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? > > Here's how I would handle things: > > 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I > would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of > cheating. > > Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged > agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific > suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think > a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. > > 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. > At this point in time, I tell him to either > > (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR > (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game > > If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that > over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't > expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. Well, there is deeper water under the bridge here: A Lightner double would have suggested (requested?) a Diamond lead (Dummy's first bid suit) so passing after ascertaining that he is in a position to make a Lightner double can definitely be taken as a suggestion to lead something else (except hardly a Club). And even further, as there is a well known slogan to lead Spades against NT contracts, a Lightner double here could also be taken as a request not to lead a Spade. Therefore this question followed by pass could very well be taken as an elaborate means to suggest a spade lead. Initially I was about to write a comment asking "what is the problem?" but frankly I have second thoughts. At least I should warn the defender to postpone such questions until the opening lead is due (at which time the question could hardly cause any harm). I might even adjust the board on the ground that the question was out of time and made for no valid bridge reason. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 9 03:43:33 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 02:43:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? References: <000301c839f8$9f114180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000201c83a14$f52aa9f0$74ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lightner question? >> On Behalf Of richard willey >> On Dec 8, 2007 5:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: >> >> > You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 >> > The uncontested auction is ... >> > (1C) _P (2D) _P >> > (3C) _P (3N) _P >> > (4C) _P (4D) _P >> > (4N) _P (6N) AP >> > * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' >> > You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. >> > Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. >> > Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? >> > (Sven) > Initially I was about to write a comment asking "what is the problem?" but > frankly I have second thoughts. At least I should warn the defender to > postpone such questions until the opening lead is due (at which time the > question could hardly cause any harm). I might even adjust the board on > the > ground that the question was out of time and made for no valid bridge > reason. > +=+ 2007 Law 20C1 : "After the final pass...." - ergo not *before* the final pass. There is an infraction. Law 23 may apply. If there is doubt whether the infraction suggests a spade lead the Director may have regard to Law 84D. Under the 1997 Laws we follow the same route to 72B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Sun Dec 9 04:51:01 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:51:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c83a16$b735b160$d3155e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lightner question? > On Dec 8, 2007 5:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > >> You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 >> The uncontested auction is ... >> (1C) _P (2D) _P >> (3C) _P (3N) _P >> (4C) _P (4D) _P >> (4N) _P (6N) AP >> * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' >> You lead S4 and find partner with SAK. >> Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. >> Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? > > Here's how I would handle things: > > 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I > would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of > cheating. > > Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged > agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific > suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think > a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. > > 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. > At this point in time, I tell him to either > > (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR > (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game > > If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that > over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't > expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. > > I think Richard is too severe on the declarer. Perhaps the declarer or his partner should have called TD as soon as the question was made instead of waiting for the lead to be faced. What would Richard as TD have done then? It was the defender who was not on lead who caused a problem. He had no legitimate reason [that I can think of] other than to indicate that "if he was on lead he would Dbl", to find out in the middle of the auction before making his final Pass, whether it was his lead or his partner's. The damage was done in the bidding of slam off two cashers. Result stands, but the person who made the question needs to be dealt with. IMO. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 9 05:11:35 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:11:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <475B6AF7.9020001@ntlworld.com> [nige1] You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 The uncontested auction is ... (1C) _P (2D) _P (3C) _P (3N) _P (4C) _P (4D) _P (4N) _P (6N) AP * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' You lead a spade and find partner with SAK. Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? [Richard Willey] Here's how I would handle things: 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of cheating. Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. At this point in time, I tell him to either (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game. If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. [nige1] Would your ruling change, Richard, if West led a heart? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 9 05:17:01 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:17:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <000201c839f6$380aa960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c839f6$380aa960$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <475B6C3D.7010800@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 3N, LHO leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. [Sven Pran] As long as RHO didn't grasp the opportunity and demanded Dummy to discard the D6 (which was his privilege of course when Declarer said "play anything" or words to that effect!) the defense has no case for any adjustment afterwards. Apparently they set the slam anyway. [nige1] Thank you Sven. Would it make any difference if the contract was 3N (which is what I intended) *corrected above* and the the D6 was declarer's 9th trick? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 9 05:24:50 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:24:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <475B6AF7.9020001@ntlworld.com> References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> <475B6AF7.9020001@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <475B6E12.5020108@ntlworld.com> [nige1] You hold S:T864 H:T63 D:JT9 C:JT9 The uncontested auction is ... (1C) _P (2D) _P (3C) _P (3N) _P (4C) _P (4D) _P (4N) _P (6N) AP * Before passing, Partner says 'Is it my lead?' You lead a spade and find partner with SAK. Thirteen tricks make if any other suit is led. Declarer calls the director. How should he rule? [Richard Willey] Here's how I would handle things: 1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to the table. I would specifically ask whether he is accusing the opposing pair of cheating. Is he claiming that the opponents have some kind of pre-arranged agreement that asking about the lead is a signal to lead a specific suit? If not, does the declarer have any conceivable reason to think a Club, Diamond, or Heart lead is a logical alternative. 2. Personally, I expect declarer to hem, haw, and babble something. At this point in time, I tell him to either (a) Grow a set of balls and directly accuse people of cheating OR (b) Sit down, shut up, and play the damn card game. If declarer causes further problem, I'll explain to him that over-litigious bastards are ruining the game and that he shouldn't expect any satisfaction from bullshit director's calls. [nige1] Would your ruling change, Richard, if West led a heart ... and partner turned up with HAK? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 9 06:50:05 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 05:50:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Field? Message-ID: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> You are playing in an EBU teams event. You pick up: S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:xxxx C:x Partner has: S:QJT H:x D:Kxx C:AQJT98 LHO deals and the auction is (1C) 2C (_P) 2S (_P) 3C AP - 1C = (Not alerted). At least two clubs. - 2C = (Alerted). RHO asks, and you explain "the majors". 3C goes three down but opponents claim that they would have bid 4H had they known what your partner held. You and partner aren't quite sure what you've agreed. Assume partner would make six tricks in clubs and you'd make four tricks in spades. Assume opponents might well bid 4H if you'd explained 2C as "Natural" and 4H would make ten tricks. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Dec 6 18:18:47 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:18:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093973@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> The TD asks what is going on, you tell him you did not intend to bid 1H, he instructs you to make the call you intended, you bid 1S, the TD says that's illegal and applies the appropriate law. How else can we rule given the end of Law 25 "if illegal, it is subject to the applicable law." Robin Barker Mathematics and Scientific Computing group F1-A8 Ext: 7090 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071206/f17c931d/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 10:20:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:20:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <475B6C3D.7010800@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c83a44$b11946b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [nige1] > Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 3N, LHO > leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy > plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last > card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last > trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. > > [Sven Pran] > As long as RHO didn't grasp the opportunity and demanded Dummy to > discard the D6 (which was his privilege of course when Declarer said > "play anything" or words to that effect!) the defense has no case for > any adjustment afterwards. Apparently they set the slam anyway. > > [nige1] > Thank you Sven. Would it make any difference if the contract was 3N > (which is what I intended) *corrected above* and the the D6 was > declarer's 9th trick? No. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 11:14:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:14:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093973@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000601c83a4c$4309a450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of Robin Barker >The TD asks what is going on, >you tell him you did not intend to bid 1H, >he instructs you to make the call you intended, >you bid 1S, >the TD says that's illegal and >applies the appropriate law. >How else can we rule given the end of Law 25 >"if illegal, it is subject to the applicable law." >Robin Barker Sure, what is the problem? For the consequences of a bid out of turn it can very well be important to have correct denomination specified before proceeding with the "bid out of turn" irregularity. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Dec 9 11:31:50 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:31:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C? In-Reply-To: <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712022237i294c0bacj960aabdc6f112d3a@mail.gmail.com> <129A00B5-CB05-4058-B2F6-CBF9B20D6DFB@rochester.rr.com> <00b201c8366c$b9141c90$67d4403e@Mildred> <47554C77.1020800@ulb.ac.be> <8B960B9B-B952-4230-AE5C-196F6E9C281E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <475BC416.4080604@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to play in the denomination named or last named. Not all forcing bids are artificial, though, so "forcing" and "artificial" are not synonyms. A call cannot be both artificial and not artificial. Can it be neither? A call cannot be both natural and not natural. Can it be neither? Can a call be both natural and artificial? [nige1] IMO ... - All calls are natural *or* artificial but *not both*. - All artificial calls are conventiona1. - Most but not all natural calls are conventional (e.g forcing natural bids are conventional; a bid that shows exactly six of the bid suit is conventional) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 9 15:06:25 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:06:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Leading question References: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> <471FDA9A.7060809@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002d01c83a6d$3a9e7a90$74d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:51 PM Subject: [blml] Leading question > > Below are the new laws (I suspect that only the > numbers have changed) that may be relevant to > the legality of leading to the next trick before the > previous trick is quitted. Obviously, BLML > law-makers and tournament directors are virtually > unanimous in their interpretation of these laws: > they believe that "early" leads are OK. > +=+ Perhaps I have not been reading this thread attentively. Provided (Law 45E1) that the Director deems a card to have been led, and (Law 44G) it is known in which hand the current trick has been won (the lead to the next trick being made from that hand), it is inferred from Law 57A that such a lead is timely if it is made after the leader's partner plays to the current trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 9 15:06:25 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:06:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Leading question References: <471FD237.4010906@ntlworld.com> <471FDA9A.7060809@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002d01c83a6d$3a9e7a90$74d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:51 PM Subject: [blml] Leading question > > Below are the new laws (I suspect that only the > numbers have changed) that may be relevant to > the legality of leading to the next trick before the > previous trick is quitted. Obviously, BLML > law-makers and tournament directors are virtually > unanimous in their interpretation of these laws: > they believe that "early" leads are OK. > +=+ Perhaps I have not been reading this thread attentively. Provided (Law 45E1) that the Director deems a card to have been led, and (Law 44G) it is known in which hand the current trick has been won (the lead to the next trick being made from that hand), it is inferred from Law 57A that such a lead is timely if it is made after the leader's partner plays to the current trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 15:23:00 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:23:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <000d01c83a16$b735b160$d3155e47@DFYXB361> References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> <000d01c83a16$b735b160$d3155e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0712090623v39ef2aa3w28225b1f3af9fef7@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 8, 2007 10:51 PM, raija wrote: > The damage was done in the bidding of slam off two cashers. Result stands, > but the person who made the question needs to be dealt with. IMO. I am attaching a direct quote from the Introduction to the 2007 Laws: >>The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate >>remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily >>designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of >>situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. The Laws aren't designed to "deal with" players who do something that you don't like. Players are allowed to make a mistake/get confused regarding who is on lead. Learn to live with it. If a player genuinely believes that the opponents are cheating then he should level a formal charge of cheating and see it through. What I consider truly pernicious is the continued attempts by players to seize on minor irregularity's in an attempt to improve their score. -- "Truffle oil is the ketchup of the newly affluent" - Anthony Bourdain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 9 15:26:32 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:26:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal References: <000001c83a44$b11946b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <001101c83a91$5b41ffa0$64ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy reversal >> On Behalf Of Guthrie >> [nige1] >> Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 3N, LHO >> leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy >> plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last >> card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last >> trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> As long as RHO didn't grasp the opportunity and demanded Dummy to >> discard the D6 (which was his privilege of course when Declarer said >> "play anything" or words to that effect!) the defense has no case for >> any adjustment afterwards. Apparently they set the slam anyway. >> >> [nige1] >> Thank you Sven. Would it make any difference if the contract was 3N >> (which is what I intended) *corrected above* and the the D6 was >> declarer's 9th trick? > > No. > +=+ Is it contended that dummy's action cannot constitute a violation of Law 45F ? If so, please explain. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 9 20:30:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:30:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> References: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <91EF99C7-AAF3-482F-8FEC-F3E5175BCDC7@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Guthrie wrote: > You and partner aren't quite > sure what you've agreed. "The director is to assume misexplanation instead of misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Here, the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that "the majors" is not the pair's agreement. Since Law 21B3 applies here, the question whether somebody fielded a misbid is irrelevant. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 9 20:57:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:57:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <001101c83a91$5b41ffa0$64ca403e@Mildred> References: <000001c83a44$b11946b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001101c83a91$5b41ffa0$64ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Dec 9, 2007, at 9:26 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ Is it contended that dummy's action cannot constitute > a violation of Law 45F ? If so, please explain. There is a hole here. Law 45F prohibits dummy from suggesting a play. Law 46B5 says only that either defender may designate the card to be played if declarer says "play anything". That does not negate the prohibition in Law 45F. However, Law 42A3 tells dummy to play the cards of the dummy as directed by declarer. Declarer said "play anything", so declarer must play *something*. That defenders did not exercise their right to designate a card doesn't change dummy's obligation. In the case at hand, either defender could have called the director and asserted their right to designate the play from dummy, even after dummy placed the ace of hearts in the played position. Law 45D might be applied. However, when declarer's RHO played to the trick, he forfeited their side's right to designate the card played from dummy (Law 60A1). So yeah, dummy violated 45F, but the defender condoned it. Too bad. From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 21:38:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:38:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <001101c83a91$5b41ffa0$64ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01c83aa3$876b8530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............. > >> On Behalf Of Guthrie > >> [nige1] > >> Declarer is a beginner and dummy an expert. At trick 12 in 3N, LHO > >> leads C8. Dummy has HA and D6. Declarer says "Play anything". Dummy > >> plays HA. RHO wins the trick with C9 and sheepishly faces his last > >> card which turns out to be D5, so that D6 in dummy wins the last > >> trick! The defence are not amused and summon the director. > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> As long as RHO didn't grasp the opportunity and demanded Dummy to > >> discard the D6 (which was his privilege of course when Declarer said > >> "play anything" or words to that effect!) the defense has no case for > >> any adjustment afterwards. Apparently they set the slam anyway. > >> > >> [nige1] > >> Thank you Sven. Would it make any difference if the contract was 3N > >> (which is what I intended) *corrected above* and the the D6 was > >> declarer's 9th trick? > > > > No. > > > +=+ Is it contended that dummy's action cannot constitute > a violation of Law 45F ? If so, please explain. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Dummy did IMO not "suggest" a play, he responded to a request by Declarer to "play any card". It can of course be constructed that Declarer (beginner) sought the advice from Dummy (expert) on which card to play, but it is IMHO more probable that Declarer simply was completely unaware of the significance. A very relevant question is what the duties of Dummy are if/when he "knows" that the selection among "any card(s)" can indeed be important? Are you suggesting that before responding to a request for "any card" Dummy must always first ask both defenders if they have any opinion on which card he is to play; or maybe that he shall completely refuse to "play any card" until Declarer has specified exactly which card to play? I shall find such procedures unsuitable to say the least. My experience is that in at least nine out of ten such cases the card(s) played by Dummy is completely indifferent. I stand by my opinion that it must be defenders own duty to protect their interests, this cannot possibly be a duty for Dummy (who is specifically forbidden to take part in the play in any manner). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 00:49:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:49:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >Here's how I would handle things: > >1. I would pointedly ask Declarer why he called me to >the table. I would specifically ask whether he is >accusing the opposing pair of cheating. [snip] Richard Hills: And if I was Declarer I would mildly reply that the defender not on lead (perhaps excited by their spade holding) unintentionally transmitted unauthorised information during the auction. Ergo, I was not accusing the opposing pair of cheating. And it is not the role of a Director to be a partisan at the table and put words such as "cheating" into players' mouths. I would suggest to such a partisan Director that his approach was not helpful, when I was merely seeking an answer to a question as to whether RHO's UI demonstrably suggested LHO's actual successful opening lead over a different, less successful, logical alternative lead. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 10 01:00:11 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? References: <475B193E.5070404@ntlworld.com><2da24b8e0712081442x4ab55bdand21c3dc5a9d9bd47@mail.gmail.com><000d01c83a16$b735b160$d3155e47@DFYXB361> <2da24b8e0712090623v39ef2aa3w28225b1f3af9fef7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007a01c83acc$dc2a53c0$2ad2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lightner question? > On Dec 8, 2007 10:51 PM, raija wrote: > >> The damage was done in the bidding of slam off two cashers. Result >> stands, >> but the person who made the question needs to be dealt with. IMO. > > I am attaching a direct quote from the Introduction to the 2007 Laws: > >>>The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an >>>adequate >>>remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are >>>primarily >>>designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the > rectification of >>>situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. > > The Laws aren't designed to "deal with" players who do something that > you don't like. > > Players are allowed to make a mistake/get confused regarding who is on > lead. Learn to live with it. > > If a player genuinely believes that the opponents are cheating then he > should level a formal charge of cheating and see it through. > > What I consider truly pernicious is the continued attempts by players > to seize on minor irregularity's in an attempt to improve their score. > +=+ I understand the question was asked before, not after, the final pass of the auction. The timing does not comply with the laws (20C1). The action infracts the laws. Laws 9A1 and 9B1(a) apply. To act as the laws provide is entirely proper. Describing as 'pernicious' an action which is "in strict accordance with the Laws" (Law 72A) is an attack upon the general principles by which the game is played. The remedial measures and rectifications prescribed in the laws ensue from breaches of correct procedure. It is true that some of the breaches are such that they could be used by malicious design to obtain an improper advantage, but the Director applies the law to his ascertainment of fact, without being called upon to determine or imply malice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 04:36:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0nfll3to4g355m25o90ejq6tmca72g0t1f@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal: [snip] >What should the TD do if the contract could not "well have been >different", but the non-offending side is damaged in the play? >- either because the same contract is reached in a different >way Richard Hills: Rub of the green? Jesper Dybdal: >or because the offending side becomes defenders and defend >better because of information from the insufficient bid. Richard Hills: Now _that_ is a paradox. Law 27C2 only applies if Law 27C1 is used first. And Law 27C1 says that the replacement call "incorporates" the information of the insufficient bid, so there is not any illegal information outstanding from the insufficient bid. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 05:09:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:09:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712042341i5a0f0dafna942d5bdd536b5da@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >This is really a bad situation. Really bad. Who decides >what is "information taken for granted by players generally"? Richard Hills: Regulating Authorities, Directors and Appeals Committees made value judgements under the 1997 Laws and will continue to make value judgements under the 2007 Laws. I have no problem with that. I call it good. Really good. Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >Your position on my statement is unclear to me. Do you agree >or disagree with my proposition, trying to understand your >position, that "*any* bid that shows some point range that >differs from what is generally taken for granted by players >generally is artificial 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: The word "strength" only appears in the second half of the definition - the definition of artificial pass - so therefore it seems to me that point range/strength is not relevant to the first half definition of an artificial bid, double or redouble. Indeed, I have many times made a penalty double of 4S or 4H with the strength of just one jack - in trumps - thanks to the auction telling me that pard had the other three setting tricks. In 1997 that one-point penalty double was not artificial. And in 2007 I would argue that that one-point penalty double remains non-artificial, despite "players generally" being too cowardly to employ such penalty doubles. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 10 05:18:10 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:18:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093973@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <004601c83ae3$ae356060$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:18 PM Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT The TD asks what is going on, you tell him you did not intend to bid 1H, he instructs you to make the call you intended, you bid 1S, the TD says that's illegal and applies the appropriate law. The TD in question (trust me, he's competent) just cancelled my call. He knew and I knew it was wrong, but he felt that left hand Heidi would get spectacularly confused if he ran the whole 9 yards past her. I agree and the TD in question commented after the game that a 4th seat BOOT after a 1st seat pass is virtually never going to get accepted. He would have applied the lead penalty to spades I think The TD is probably reading this and smiling. cheers john How else can we rule given the end of Law 25 "if illegal, it is subject to the applicable law." Robin Barker Mathematics and Scientific Computing group F1-A8 Ext: 7090 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 10 10:18:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <000301c839f8$9f114180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c839f8$9f114180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <475D0475.20106@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Initially I was about to write a comment asking "what is the problem?" but > frankly I have second thoughts. At least I should warn the defender to > postpone such questions until the opening lead is due (at which time the > question could hardly cause any harm). I might even adjust the board on the > ground that the question was out of time and made for no valid bridge > reason. > I'd have thought that an adjustment for "no-bridge-reason-action" was only possible when opponents were misled, which is'nt the case here. So far, contributors to blml only addressed the matter of cheating. I'd like to address the matter of UI. The question, coming before the final pass, could well be induced by a will to double if one was on lead - not two aces, with which one might well double anyway - but rather AK, or KQ + Ace. I think that correcting the score for UI (in which suit this AK risked going to bed ? Surely in a major) is quite possible. No need to use the C-word. Call that hand washing if you want. Best ragards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 10 10:24:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:24:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> References: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <475D05BD.6030306@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > You are playing in an EBU teams event. > You pick up: S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:xxxx C:x > Partner has: S:QJT H:x D:Kxx C:AQJT98 > LHO deals and the auction is > (1C) 2C (_P) 2S > (_P) 3C AP > - 1C = (Not alerted). At least two clubs. > - 2C = (Alerted). RHO asks, and you explain "the majors". > 3C goes three down but opponents claim that they would have bid 4H > had they known what your partner held. You and partner aren't quite > sure what you've agreed. Assume partner would make six tricks in clubs > and you'd make four tricks in spades. Assume opponents might well bid > 4H if you'd explained 2C as "Natural" and 4H would make ten tricks. > > I think the adjusted score should be 4S X minus whatever 4S goes down on good defense. Bidding 3C after the explanation is clearly using your explanation. Without it, partner would think you hold a fair hand with a fair spade suit, and a 4S bid (or even perhaps 4H) would be automatic - what do you want to play facing AKxxx - Jxx - Qxxx - x ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 10 10:24:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:24:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Field? In-Reply-To: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> References: <475B820D.6070502@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <475D05BD.6030306@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > You are playing in an EBU teams event. > You pick up: S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:xxxx C:x > Partner has: S:QJT H:x D:Kxx C:AQJT98 > LHO deals and the auction is > (1C) 2C (_P) 2S > (_P) 3C AP > - 1C = (Not alerted). At least two clubs. > - 2C = (Alerted). RHO asks, and you explain "the majors". > 3C goes three down but opponents claim that they would have bid 4H > had they known what your partner held. You and partner aren't quite > sure what you've agreed. Assume partner would make six tricks in clubs > and you'd make four tricks in spades. Assume opponents might well bid > 4H if you'd explained 2C as "Natural" and 4H would make ten tricks. > > I think the adjusted score should be 4S X minus whatever 4S goes down on good defense. Bidding 3C after the explanation is clearly using your explanation. Without it, partner would think you hold a fair hand with a fair spade suit, and a 4S bid (or even perhaps 4H) would be automatic - what do you want to play facing AKxxx - Jxx - Qxxx - x ? Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 01:32:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:32:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] L25A BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c83ae3$ae356060$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: Richard Hills: So far this discussion has been based on the 1997 Law 25. But the new 2007 Law 31B, read together with its footnote, might lead to a different ruling (especially since the new 2007 Law 25 has been extensively rewritten). It seems to me that the 2007 Law 31B implies that an initial bid out of rotation is not subject to Law 25, with only some later bids out of rotation being directed to Law 25. 2007 Law 31B: >When the offender has bid at his partner's turn >to call, or at his LHO's turn to call, if the >offender has not previously called**, offender's >partner must pass whenever it is his turn to >call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non- >offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 >may apply. > >**Later calls at LHO's turn to call are treated >as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. Richard Hills: Meanwhile, the 1997 phrase "if illegal" has been deleted from the 2007 Law 25A1, which may or may not affect which of 2007 Laws 31B and 25A1 take precedence in resolving John Probst's scenario. 2007 Law 25A1: >Until his partner makes a call, a player may >substitute his intended call for an unintended >call but only if he does so, or attempts to do >so, without pause for thought. The second >(intended) call stands and is subject to the >appropriate Law. Richard Hills: How would blmlers rule in 2008 if John Probst's scenario occurred again? Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 03:27:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:27:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >That's nice, in effect I get to play partner's cards >(rationally). I must remember to claim more often >when defending. 2007 Law 70D2: The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on his partner's selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays. Richard Hills: So if partner has several normal losing defensive plays, but only one winning defensive play, Marvin should not claim more often as defender. Unless, of course, Marv's partner habitually makes _abnormally_ bad defensive plays, such as revokes. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 04:31:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:31:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <475D0475.20106@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >So far, contributors to blml only addressed the matter of cheating. >I'd like to address the matter of UI. Richard Hills: Me too. There is a popular misconception amongst many players that an opponent asking the TD for a Law 16 UI ruling has a one-to-one correspondence with that opponent alleging cheating. It is rather disconcerting that Richard Willey fell into that trap when Edgar Kaplan (and his successors for the 2007 Lawbook) spent considerable time ensuring that malicious intent was not relevant for a Law 16 ruling. Alain Gottcheiner: >The question, coming before the final pass, could well be induced >by a will to double if one was on lead - not two aces, with which >one might well double anyway - but rather AK, or KQ + Ace. > >I think that correcting the score for UI (in which suit this AK >risked going to bed ? Surely in a major) is quite possible. No need >to use the C-word. Call that hand washing if you want. Richard Hills: If the question demonstrably suggested such an honour holding, then the Director now has to determine whether a passive lead (e.g. jack of diamonds) is a logical alternative in the absence of the honour- suggesting question. Raija: [snip] >>Perhaps the declarer or his partner should have called TD as soon >>as the question was made [snip] Richard Hills: No longer required, as the non-offending side has improved rights under the 2007 version of Law 16. 2007 Law 16B3 (first sentence and footnote): When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. ** it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 11 05:51:44 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:51:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005a01c83bb1$8ad76040$6a01a8c0@MARVIN> > Richard Hills: > > So if partner has several normal losing defensive > plays, but only one winning defensive play, Marvin > should not claim more often as defender. > > Unless, of course, Marv's partner habitually makes > _abnormally_ bad defensive plays, such as revokes. > > ;-) > The workable approach is to claim (playing with someone who makes irrational plays, perhaps rarely) when you can see that the trick or tricks claimed could not be lost except by an irrational play, not when partner has "several normal defensive plays." There is no risk, and once in a while claiming will prevent a blunder by partner. To be clear, this does not involve preventing such blunders as discarding incorrectly when declarer's hand is known (e.g., he has ruffed a suit), but more extreme idiocies (yes, including revoking) such as unguarding a suit held by dummy when declarer is locked in dummy on the previous trick and can't play anything else. "I can't discard an ace, can I?" Danny Kleinman has related to me a number of hilarious stories involving clients of his who have done such things near the end of play. That is why I hoped to see a ban against claiming on the basis of a trick or tricks to be won by partner, with the "rectification" power given declarer to play partner's hand in any way he wishes, rational or not. Like we did in the old days. Question: Is making such a claim unethical? I wouldn't do it, nor would Danny, even though it is evidently legal. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 11 06:33:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:33:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: 1997 Law 16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." These words say that from the set of logical alternative calls or plays, the recipient of EI may not choose one which one could show might have been suggested over another. I have been told that the words do not mean what they say, in that "logical alternative" doesn't mean that, it means something more akin to "plausible (for the player concerned?) alternative", and also that the presumably less successful alternative against which we measure damage need not be a "logical alternative". I have the thought in mind that there was a WBFLC minute or an article in the White Book, or perhaps in the WBF CoP, that supports this interpretation, but a quick search through those didn't turn it up. 2007 Law 16B1(a): "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." So this law will be unchanged. However, 2007 Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." At least the law makes it clear how the term is to be defined - and that "logical alternative" does indeed mean something more akin to "plausible alternative". My first question is, if the phrase "logical alternative", as defined by a decent dictionary, is not accurate, why did the lawmakers explicitly redefine it rather that finding some other phrase? My second question is, if the less successful alternative need not be an LA, why not? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 11 09:53:35 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:53:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <475E500F.7010603@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Raija: > > [snip] > > >>> Perhaps the declarer or his partner should have called TD as soon >>> as the question was made >>> > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > No longer required, as the non-offending side has improved rights > under the 2007 version of Law 16. > > 2007 Law 16B3 (first sentence and footnote): > > When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who > had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been > suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when > play ends**. > > ** it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later. > AG : That's a welcome inprovement. Calling as soon as tempo is ascertained puts too much pressure on the conductor's partner, and on the TD. Except in very specific circumstances, tempi will have no influence whatsoever on the remaining of the deal. And the former law allowed TDs to rule "I wash my hands" because the call was made late and they consider (seeing all four hands) that the player calling should have known earlier there was a problem. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 11 10:18:16 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:18:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <475E55D8.7020207@ulb.ac.be> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > My first question is, if the phrase "logical alternative", as defined > by a decent dictionary, is not accurate, why did the lawmakers > explicitly redefine it rather that finding some other phrase? > > AG : Because in all specialized areas of human activity and knowledge, there are things that can't be descrbed using mundane words in the sense they have in a nonspecific dictionary, which means new meanings (or new words) must be devised and defined. A landing field, a gauge field or an algebrical field aren't the same as potato fields ; you'd rather define them. For French-speaking people : "une chauve-souris n'est pas une souris et elle n'est pas chauve, mais on l'appelle chauve-souris malgr? tout". > My second question is, if the less successful alternative need not be > an LA, why not? > AG: This seems bizarre indeed. Apart from that, I don't like the idea of "some might select it", because it gives the (potential) OS the very difficult task to prove that, given their methods, nobody would ; and could lead to accusations of made-up arguments. The following hand is a live case, which would cause problems with the present rules : You hold AQJ9x - xx - KQx - xxx, nobody vul at MPs, and partner, the dealer, makes some gesture or remark to the effect that he once again holds peanuts. RHO opens 1NT. Would you overcall 2S ? If you don't, could the TD rule UI ? Well, thazt pair's methods prohibited the 2S bid : they have a 2D overcall to show a 6-card major, and a bid of 2S would be 2-suited (5 spades + a minor). There is no provision for 5332 patterns, and they probably are right. Showing their CC was enough to convince me (as an AC member) there was no LA. Now, those methods are pretty popular in Belgium, and it wouldn't be difficult for me to find some players who use it and would overcall 2D given those favorable circumstances (vulnerability and ability to make partner declarer fairly often), and even perhaps the odd one who would overcall in their 5-3 "two-suiter". According to the wording of the rules, 2D (and perhaps 2S) would be LAs, even if the pair's methods say the contrary and if this pair sticks to them. That's pernicious. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 11 10:44:01 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:44:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 16A References: Message-ID: <001201c83bdc$d93b1170$4ece403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:33 AM Subject: [blml] Law 16A > 1997 Law 16A: > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play... the partner may not choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information." > > These words say that from the set of logical alternative calls or > plays, the recipient of EI may not choose one which one could show > might have been suggested over another. > > I have been told that the words do not mean what they say, in that > "logical alternative" doesn't mean that, it means something more akin > to "plausible (for the player concerned?) alternative", and also that > the presumably less successful alternative against which we measure > damage need not be a "logical alternative". I have the thought in > mind that there was a WBFLC minute or an article in the White Book, > or perhaps in the WBF CoP, that supports this interpretation, but a > quick search through those didn't turn it up. > > 2007 Law 16B1(a): > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play... the partner may not choose from > among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information." > > So this law will be unchanged. However, 2007 Law 16B1(b): > > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players > in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of > whom it is judged some might select it." > > At least the law makes it clear how the term is to be defined - and > that "logical alternative" does indeed mean something more akin to > "plausible alternative". > > My first question is, if the phrase "logical alternative", as defined > by a decent dictionary, is not accurate, why did the lawmakers > explicitly redefine it rather that finding some other phrase? > > My second question is, if the less successful alternative need not be > an LA, why not? > +=+ Apparently all seven members of the Drafting SubCommittee were comfortable with the phrase 'logical alternative'. There was no suggestion from anyone that another term replace it. In the WBF, of course, we already had the definition of 'logical alternative' in the Code of Practice* and we gave it universal effect by writing it into the laws so that in future it will make no difference should the CoP not be written into the regulations. I am finding it difficult to get my head round Ed's question concerning 'the less successful alternative'. I am unsure what is the question. However, as I see it, the DSC had no intention of changing the effect of the law in this area. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* see under 'Use of Unauthorized Information', among the four key questions.] From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:55:16 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:55:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both West and I are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. West did send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the best player at the table, the other 3 players are at best intermediate. Mail be West: "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. North East South WestC:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A H:xx D: 1098 North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs for me and the rest is for you". West immediatly protests because he still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone).Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because of the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which some of the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which sequence the cards come on the table; according to North first club Queen and then Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence of club Queen followed by the Ten is not important because further play after the claim should be cancelled.The Tournement director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make in case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East will make his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of normal play. Other play by East would be unrealistic and should therefor not be taken into account according the rules. Because East now has left only Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. There are no other possibilities. I rememeber that some years ago there was a similar case at a World championship. Declarer claimed and would make his contract. The opps protest and demand to continue the play. When continuing the play the declarer makes an error (caused by the rumour at the table) and goes down. The TD has given the claimed tricks to the declarer as normal play and has cancelled the play and error that happened after the claim at the table." My comments:- East confirmed that he did first Club Q on the table (that was after the claim and after the dicussions at the table).- If East does not know that North still has Club J then it is not unrealistic that we would play Club Q instead of club T? I agree that play can not continue after cards are shown, but the 'play' of the club Q indicates that it is a possibility? Also the claim in itself indicates it because East did not know that West could still have Heart Ace.- I ruled 3 tricks for N-S (Club Q followed by club T). I'm not 100% happy with that ruling as I don't want to discourage claims and probably West has a point that the 'play' of club Q can have been caused by the rumours at the table. Your comments?Thanks a lot!Koen _________________________________________________________________ De snelle weg naar een praatje http://messenger.live.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071211/d7013265/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Tue Dec 11 13:06:53 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:06:53 EST Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: In a message dated 11/12/2007 11:59:03 GMT Standard Time, kgrauwel at hotmail.com writes: >Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both West and I >are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. West did send me a mail to ask to >review my decision. West is the best player at the table, the other 3 players are at >best intermediate. >"These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. South >>>(dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. >North East South West >C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A >>>>>>>>H:xx ........ D: 1098 >North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs for me and >the rest is for you". West immediatly protests because he still has Heart Ace and 3 >free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone) This seems an easy one to me. Anything after the claim is irrelevant (indeed a well-known international once went off after claiming on a double squeeze when asked to play on - the correct claim was restored; cue a poem from David Burn, please!). And, as dummy is visible, the only plausible line of play gives all four tricks to the defenders, so four tricks to the defenders it is. From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 11 13:22:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:22:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <475D0475.20106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c83bf0$7c18a980$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > > Initially I was about to write a comment asking "what is the problem?" > but > > frankly I have second thoughts. At least I should warn the defender to > > postpone such questions until the opening lead is due (at which time the > > question could hardly cause any harm). I might even adjust the board on > the > > ground that the question was out of time and made for no valid bridge > > reason. > > > > I'd have thought that an adjustment for "no-bridge-reason-action" was > only possible when opponents were misled, which is'nt the case here. I used it as a means to reach L72B1. The question out of time was an irregularity in itself so for that sake I didn't even need "no bridge reason". Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 11 15:21:08 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:21:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9420C897-5EBA-44ED-8C6E-DBC55EE59BDB@starpower.net> On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> So far, contributors to blml only addressed the matter of cheating. >> I'd like to address the matter of UI. > > Richard Hills: > > Me too. There is a popular misconception amongst many players that > an opponent asking the TD for a Law 16 UI ruling has a one-to-one > correspondence with that opponent alleging cheating. It is rather > disconcerting that Richard Willey fell into that trap when Edgar > Kaplan (and his successors for the 2007 Lawbook) spent considerable > time ensuring that malicious intent was not relevant for a Law 16 > ruling. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> The question, coming before the final pass, could well be induced >> by a will to double if one was on lead - not two aces, with which >> one might well double anyway - but rather AK, or KQ + Ace. >> >> I think that correcting the score for UI (in which suit this AK >> risked going to bed ? Surely in a major) is quite possible. No need >> to use the C-word. Call that hand washing if you want. > > Richard Hills: > > If the question demonstrably suggested such an honour holding, then > the Director now has to determine whether a passive lead (e.g. jack > of diamonds) is a logical alternative in the absence of the honour- > suggesting question. I can see where the question might be deemed to have "demonstrably suggested such an honour holding", but do not see anything to "demonstrably suggest" that the thus-suggested holding be in spades. It is incumbent on those offering rationales for adjusting the score here to explain why a similar adjustment would not be in order if the opening leader had chosen a heart, diamond or club and hit partner's AK for the only way to set the slam. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 11 15:39:58 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:39:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <9420C897-5EBA-44ED-8C6E-DBC55EE59BDB@starpower.net> References: <9420C897-5EBA-44ED-8C6E-DBC55EE59BDB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <475EA13E.8070002@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > I can see where the question might be deemed to have "demonstrably > suggested such an honour holding", but do not see anything to > "demonstrably suggest" that the thus-suggested holding be in spades. > It is incumbent on those offering rationales for adjusting the score > here to explain why a similar adjustment would not be in order if the > opening leader had chosen a heart, diamond or club and hit partner's > AK for the only way to set the slam. > > Right ! But if they are in clubs, they won't fly away, and if they're in diamonds, one would have lightnerized. So the mannerism suggests leading a major suit. If a diamond lead is possible, as say with Jxxx - 10xxx - 1098x - x, do adjust. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 11 15:41:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:41:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> On Dec 11, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Koen Grauwels wrote: > Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. > Both West and I are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. > West did send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the > best player at the table, the other 3 players are at best > intermediate. > Mail be West: > "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT > contract. South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. > North East South West > C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A > H:xx D: 1098 > North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two > clubs for me and the rest is for you". West immediatly protests > because he still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher > diamonds are gone). > Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because > of the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which > some of the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which > sequence the cards come on the table; according to North first club > Queen and then Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence > of club Queen followed by the Ten is not important because further > play after the claim should be cancelled. > The Tournement director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make > in case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East > will make his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of > normal play. Other play by East would be unrealistic and should > therefor not be taken into account according the rules. Because > East now has left only Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. > There are no other possibilities. > I rememeber that some years ago there was a similar case at a World > championship. Declarer claimed and would make his contract. The > opps protest and demand to continue the play. When continuing the > play the declarer makes an error (caused by the rumour at the > table) and goes down. The TD has given the claimed tricks to the > declarer as normal play and has cancelled the play and error that > happened after the claim at the table." > My comments: > - East confirmed that he did first Club Q on the table (that was > after the claim and after the dicussions at the table). > - If East does not know that North still has Club J then it is not > unrealistic that we would play Club Q instead of club T? I agree > that play can not continue after cards are shown, but the 'play' of > the club Q indicates that it is a possibility? Also the claim in > itself indicates it because East did not know that West could still > have Heart Ace. > - I ruled 3 tricks for N-S (Club Q followed by club T). I'm not > 100% happy with that ruling as I don't want to discourage claims > and probably West has a point that the 'play' of club Q can have > been caused by the rumours at the table. > Your comments? I'd have awarded the remaining four tricks to E-W. The table action after the claim is irrelevant. E claimed two club tricks and gets them. It would not be "normal" (i.e. it would be "irrational", per the 1997 footnote) for W to throw the HA to keep more than one diamond, and he will thus take the last two tricks perforce. It would be a different story had E claimed three tricks holding -/ x/-/KQ10, as it would probably not be "irrational" for W to pitch the HA from -/A/10/- at trick 12. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 11 16:03:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lightner question? In-Reply-To: <000001c83bf0$7c18a980$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83bf0$7c18a980$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <3E4C72DE-D47A-4D45-A660-713667971E1C@starpower.net> On Dec 11, 2007, at 7:22 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >>> >>> Initially I was about to write a comment asking "what is the >>> problem?" >> but >>> frankly I have second thoughts. At least I should warn the >>> defender to >>> postpone such questions until the opening lead is due (at which >>> time the >>> question could hardly cause any harm). I might even adjust the >>> board on >> the >>> ground that the question was out of time and made for no valid >>> bridge >>> reason. >>> >> >> I'd have thought that an adjustment for "no-bridge-reason-action" >> was >> only possible when opponents were misled, which is'nt the case here. > > I used it as a means to reach L72B1. > > The question out of time was an irregularity in itself so for that > sake I > didn't even need "no bridge reason". Isn't this getting out of hand? Opponents have just bid a slam in an uncontested auction, and after two passes the player in the passout seat has neglected to say the word "pass". He now asks if it is his lead -- which would be perfectly proper and legal if he had said "pass" first. So he got a bit sloppy and forgot to verbalize his pass of 6NT -- nothing reported suggests that he gave any indication that he was considering doing anything else -- then proceded normally as if he had. And we're talking about a "could have known" adjustment using L72B1, for the egregious offense of forgetting to pass out the final contract? Am I missing something? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 00:49:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:49:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005a01c83bb1$8ad76040$6a01a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >The workable approach is to claim (playing with >someone who makes irrational plays, perhaps rarely) Richard Hills: When partnering an expert in a national (imp teams) Aussie championship, as defender I could have claimed 3NT one off. I greedily chose to cash my tricks, hoping for a possible two off by maybe snaring a later trick in the wash. Partner perpetrated a non-established revoke, so instead of me cashing the fifth and setting trick I was forced to irrationally switch under a Law 26 lead restriction, thus 3NT made. At imps my cost-benefit ratio was 10 or 12 imps to 1, plus the intangible cost of devastating my expert partner's morale, so next time I will claim. Marvin French: [snip] >Question: Is making such a claim unethical? I wouldn't >do it, nor would Danny, even though it is evidently >legal. Richard Hills: In 2008, _not_ making such a score-beneficial legal claim will be unethical. The 2007 Law 72A has a second sentence which did not exist in the 1997 Lawbook. 2007 Law 72A (General Principles - Observance of Laws): Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 01:11:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:11:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 16A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <475E55D8.7020207@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Apart from that, I don't like the idea of "some might select it", >because it gives the (potential) OS the very difficult task to >prove that, given their methods, nobody would ; [big snip] >According to the wording of the rules, 2D (and perhaps 2S) would >be LAs, even if the pair's methods say the contrary and if this >pair sticks to them. > >That's pernicious. According to the wording of the non-pernicious Law 16B1(b): A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question **and using the methods of the partnership,** would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. Richard Hills: What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 05:44:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:44:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From the ECatsBridge website http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp Memo to Regulating Authorities When considering the 2007 Code of Laws Regulating Authorities may like to acquaint themselves in particular with the important changes to the laws that appear in Law 12 - Score adjustment Law 17 - the Auction Period Law 20 - Explanation of calls Law 25 - Changes of call Law 27 - Insufficient bid Law 40 - Partnership Understandings Laws 61 through 64 - Revokes Laws 69, 70, 71 - Claims and Concessions. Law 76 - Spectators Law 80 - Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers Law 85 - Basis of determination of facts Law 92 - Concurrence of appellants Since a number of Laws have been consolidated please use the Index to find an item that has been moved from its place in the 1997 Laws. Note also that, for the most part, where a term is defined in a Law the Drafting Committee has sought not to include it again in the Definitions; the Index will lead seekers to it. You may also care to observe that there is a period after the commencement of the Auction Period and prior to the commencement of the auction (see definition of 'Auction'). This is relevant when reading Law 40B2 (b) and (c), for example. Also please note that the following Laws extend options that Regulating Authorities may wish to consider: 12C, 16B2, 18F, 20F, 20G, 40A1, 40B1, 40B2, 40B3, 41A, 45A, 61B, 70E2, 73A2, 76A2, 76C, 78D, 79C, 80A, 80B, 81C8, 86A, 91B, 92B, 93C1, 93C2, 93C3. The wish of the drafting subcommittee is to produce before long an appendix or memorandum of discussion, not having the force of law, that we hope will be helpful to Directors confronted by problematic situations. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From eitan.bridge at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 22:25:22 2007 From: eitan.bridge at gmail.com (Eitan Levy) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:25:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 11/12/2007 11:59:03 GMT Standard Time, > kgrauwel at hotmail.com writes: > > This seems an easy one to me. Anything after the claim is irrelevant Not necessarily so. See the second half of law 68B, which would appear to apply to the case in question. The concession should be cancelled and play should continue (after calling the TD.) with due regard to UI Eitan Levy _______________________________________________ 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/20071211/54f6016e/attachment.htm From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Dec 11 23:41:50 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:41:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> Eric Landau wrote: >On Dec 11, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Koen Grauwels wrote: > > > >>Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. >>Both West and I are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. >>West did send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the >>best player at the table, the other 3 players are at best >>intermediate. >>Mail be West: >>"These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT >>contract. South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. >>North East South West >>C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A >> H:xx D: 1098 >>North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two >>clubs for me and the rest is for you". West immediatly protests >>because he still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher >>diamonds are gone). >>Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because >>of the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which >>some of the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which >>sequence the cards come on the table; according to North first club >>Queen and then Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence >>of club Queen followed by the Ten is not important because further >>play after the claim should be cancelled. >>The Tournement director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make >>in case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East >>will make his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of >>normal play. Other play by East would be unrealistic and should >>therefor not be taken into account according the rules. Because >>East now has left only Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. >>There are no other possibilities. >>I rememeber that some years ago there was a similar case at a World >>championship. Declarer claimed and would make his contract. The >>opps protest and demand to continue the play. When continuing the >>play the declarer makes an error (caused by the rumour at the >>table) and goes down. The TD has given the claimed tricks to the >>declarer as normal play and has cancelled the play and error that >>happened after the claim at the table." >>My comments: >>- East confirmed that he did first Club Q on the table (that was >>after the claim and after the dicussions at the table). >>- If East does not know that North still has Club J then it is not >>unrealistic that we would play Club Q instead of club T? I agree >>that play can not continue after cards are shown, but the 'play' of >>the club Q indicates that it is a possibility? Also the claim in >>itself indicates it because East did not know that West could still >>have Heart Ace. >>- I ruled 3 tricks for N-S (Club Q followed by club T). I'm not >>100% happy with that ruling as I don't want to discourage claims >>and probably West has a point that the 'play' of club Q can have >>been caused by the rumours at the table. >>Your comments? >> >> > >I'd have awarded the remaining four tricks to E-W. The table action >after the claim is irrelevant. E claimed two club tricks and gets >them. It would not be "normal" (i.e. it would be "irrational", per >the 1997 footnote) for W to throw the HA to keep more than one >diamond, and he will thus take the last two tricks perforce. > >It would be a different story had E claimed three tricks holding -/ >x/-/KQ10, as it would probably not be "irrational" for W to pitch the >HA from -/A/10/- at trick 12. > > >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >ehaa at starpower.net > > > ...sorry to ask again (I agree it is irrational for West todiscard Heart A)... Considering that East : - played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion, - did apparantly not know that West could have Heart A and free diamonds, - is not a good player, - It is very well possible - even likely - that he did not know that Club J is still in the play. => Is it irrational or very unlikely that he would actually have played the club Q followed by the T if he would not have claimed? Is giving 3 tricks to N-S a very bad ruling (I think you either give none or 3 to N-S)? Thanks again, Koen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071211/9898b839/attachment.htm From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 12 00:56:54 2007 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:56:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] dummy reversal Message-ID: <21103441.723931197417414184.JavaMail.www@wwinf2220> where is the problem ? Dummy did not suggest a play....No choice by opponents...No infraction....Result stands...IMO... Riton from Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071212/d412f20e/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 12 10:14:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:14:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> koen wrote: >> > ...sorry to ask again (I agree it is irrational for West todiscard Heart > A)... > Considering that East : > - played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion, > - did apparantly not know that West could have Heart A and free diamonds, > - is not a good player, > - It is very well possible - even likely - that he did not know that > Club J is still in the play. OK, let that be the TD's decision. What we then need to decide is whether it is rational for a player who thinks QT are good to win the trick with the 10 or with either. I say tricks are won with the lowest possible, and led from the top (thus 4 tricks to defenders), but others will of course disagree (they will give declarer 3 tricks). > => Is it irrational or very unlikely that he would actually have played > the club Q followed by the T if he would not have claimed? > Is giving 3 tricks to N-S a very bad ruling (I think you either give > none or 3 to N-S)? Indeed that's it. We will never solve this one on blml. I remember the flack I received when I told this list that the highest AC in the EBL had once decided on a claim and I dared suggest that this ought to be considered "case law". It seems to me as if some of you consider blml as a debating forum rather than as a tool to get TD's minds in the same direction. This ruling can go either way, and I'd like to know which way we're all going to rule this. We really ought to have some guidance from the WBF on this one. So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case: A player has to take a club trick (let's strip some further and say in fourth position) with either of two cards that he believes are high. He shall play the other one next (also believing it to win the trick). Do we consider that to take the first trick with the higher of the two, and to lead the lower to the next trick, constitutes a "normal play"? Does it differ whether the two cards are AQ or 86? > Thanks again, > Koen > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 12 11:08:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:08:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c83ca6$ff1ac000$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of koen (Reformatted to plain text and kept the essentials of OP): With only four cards left in a NT contract North (Declarer) has played a small club from Jxxx. Dummy is at this point indifferent with only small cards and no clubs. East with two small hearts and C:QT shows his cards and says "Two clubs for me and the rest for you" West immediately protests because he still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone). The applicable Law is 68B: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith. And to clarify the situation we have a minute from WBFLC (Paris 2001): 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. Consequently no concession has occurred nor has any claim been made, and play shall continue with due consideration to Law 16. >From the spoken statement by East with his attempt to claim we must rule that he plays the CT and CQ in that order after which the last two tricks cannot be lost for the defense by any legal play. It must be considered irrational for West to discard his AH on any of these clubs, but even if he does so the two remaining hearts in East will then take the last two tricks. East/West must be awarded all four remaining tricks. Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 12 11:45:51 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:45:51 EST Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: In a message dated 12/12/2007 06:32:14 GMT Standard Time, eitan.bridge at gmail.com writes: >Not necessarily so. See the second half of law 68B, which would appear to apply to >the case in question. Indeed, but in the case in question the partner of the person who attempted to claim then stated (or seemed to from the report) that the defence had the remainder. There was thus a new claim and play ceases under 68D. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 12 13:09:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:09:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006b01c83cbf$dc1d0a90$cfd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The wish of the drafting subcommittee is to produce before long an appendix or memorandum of discussion, not having the force of law, that we hope will be helpful to Directors confronted by problematic situations. > +=+ That was the expressed wish. However, there is now considerable doubt about the realisation of it within the near future anyway. One member of the former drafting group of seven is keen to pursue the idea, one is at best lukewarm, three have stated their opinion that we should not attempt to go forward at this time. The disagreement takes away corporate authority from any advice or illustration anyone may produce and reduces it to personal opinion. As for interpretation of the 2007 Laws, I presume that in principle the August 1998 WBFLC minute is still applicable so that interim decisions are at Zonal level until the WBF Laws Committee next meets. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 12 15:04:38 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:04:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006b01c83cbf$dc1d0a90$cfd2403e@Mildred> References: <006b01c83cbf$dc1d0a90$cfd2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <475FEA76.2040903@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ That was the expressed wish. However, there is now considerable doubt about the realisation of it within the near future anyway. One member of the former drafting group of seven is keen to pursue the idea, one is at best lukewarm, three have stated their opinion that we should not attempt to go forward at this time. The disagreement takes away corporate authority from any advice or illustration anyone may produce and reduces it to personal opinion. As for interpretation of the 2007 Laws, I presume that in principle the August 1998 WBFLC minute is still applicable so that interim decisions are at Zonal level until the WBF Laws Committee next meets. [nige1] That's a pity but it would be more of a loss ... [A] If the appendix had the force of law. [B] If the primary purpose of the appendix was to refine director's judgement in borderline cases. Instead, we are given to understand that the primary purpose of the appendix was to try to resolve English ambiguities in TNLB. IMO the dissenting WBFLC "gang of three" are correct if they feel that corrections and clarifications would be better made in place in TNLB, rather than be relegated to an appendix. After all, this new edition is the product of many wise people and a decade of work. It's main use is for players and directors to quickly access relevant legislation. For the sake of such readers, it would be better to take a little more time to get TNLB right than to publish it with what amounts to a separate list of corrigenda. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 12 15:11:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:11:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1C14F467-E610-4B72-8190-C7A4EE5F4EA6@starpower.net> On Dec 12, 2007, at 4:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > koen wrote: >>> >> ...sorry to ask again (I agree it is irrational for West todiscard >> Heart >> A)... >> Considering that East : >> - played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion, >> - did apparantly not know that West could have Heart A and free >> diamonds, >> - is not a good player, >> - It is very well possible - even likely - that he did not know that >> Club J is still in the play. > > OK, let that be the TD's decision. What we then need to decide is > whether it is rational for a player who thinks QT are good to win the > trick with the 10 or with either. > > I say tricks are won with the lowest possible, and led from the top > (thus 4 tricks to defenders), but others will of course disagree (they > will give declarer 3 tricks). > >> => Is it irrational or very unlikely that he would actually have >> played >> the club Q followed by the T if he would not have claimed? >> Is giving 3 tricks to N-S a very bad ruling (I think you either give >> none or 3 to N-S)? > > Indeed that's it. > > We will never solve this one on blml. I remember the flack I received > when I told this list that the highest AC in the EBL had once decided > on a claim and I dared suggest that this ought to be considered "case > law". It seems to me as if some of you consider blml as a debating > forum rather than as a tool to get TD's minds in the same direction. > > This ruling can go either way, and I'd like to know which way we're > all going to rule this. We really ought to have some guidance from the > WBF on this one. > > So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case: > > A player has to take a club trick (let's strip some further and say in > fourth position) with either of two cards that he believes are high. > He shall play the other one next (also believing it to win the trick). > Do we consider that to take the first trick with the higher of the > two, and to lead the lower to the next trick, constitutes a "normal > play"? Does it differ whether the two cards are AQ or 86? I would vote no and no. In Koen's original case, I think he goes wrong by writing that "East played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion". But the Law does not allow us to view cards tabled "after the claim and the discussion" as "played". They are merely being exposed, per L70B2; the order in which they are put on the table has no significance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 12 15:46:56 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:46:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1C14F467-E610-4B72-8190-C7A4EE5F4EA6@starpower.net> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> <1C14F467-E610-4B72-8190-C7A4EE5F4EA6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <475FF460.7020204@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> OK, let that be the TD's decision. What we then need to decide is >> whether it is rational for a player who thinks QT are good to win the >> trick with the 10 or with either. >> >> I say tricks are won with the lowest possible, and led from the top >> (thus 4 tricks to defenders) >> AG : I don't know about general jurisprudency, but ours is such. This means you can't unblock or crocodilize unless you specify it; A related case : when instructing "take" to dummy, who plays 4th to the trick, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card that would take the trick. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 12 22:14:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:14:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <475FF460.7020204@ulb.ac.be> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> <1C14F467-E610-4B72-8190-C7A4EE5F4EA6@starpower.net> <475FF460.7020204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>> OK, let that be the TD's decision. What we then need to decide is >>> whether it is rational for a player who thinks QT are good to win >>> the >>> trick with the 10 or with either. >>> >>> I say tricks are won with the lowest possible, and led from the top >>> (thus 4 tricks to defenders) JFTR, I didn't actually write this. But I do agree with it. > AG : I don't know about general jurisprudency, but ours is such. This > means you can't unblock or crocodilize unless you specify it; Ditto. > A related case : when instructing "take" to dummy, who plays 4th to > the > trick, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card that > would > take the trick. Three out of three. But this one is actually explicit in TFLB (L46B1). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 22:21:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:21:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <475FA692.2060707@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case: > >A player has to take a club trick (let's strip some further and say >in fourth position) with either of two cards that he believes are >high. He shall play the other one next (also believing it to win >the trick). Do we consider that to take the first trick with the >higher of the two, and to lead the lower to the next trick, >constitutes a "normal play"? Does it differ whether the two cards >are AQ or 86? 2007 Law 70E2: The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From blml at dybdal.dk Thu Dec 13 00:08:41 2007 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:08:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <0nfll3to4g355m25o90ejq6tmca72g0t1f@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:14 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Jesper Dybdal: > >>What should the TD do if the contract could not "well have been >>different", but the non-offending side is damaged in the play? >>- either because the same contract is reached in a different >>way > >Richard Hills: > >Rub of the green? Perhaps. But then I wonder why a different contract is not also just rub of the green. >Jesper Dybdal: > >>or because the offending side becomes defenders and defend >>better because of information from the insufficient bid. > >Richard Hills: > >Now _that_ is a paradox. Law 27C2 only applies if Law 27C1 is >used first. And Law 27C1 says that the replacement call >"incorporates" the information of the insufficient bid, so >there is not any illegal information outstanding from the >insufficient bid. That is true if "incorporates" is interpreted quite literally. I would prefer a loose interpretation of "incorporates" where the TD could use L27C even if the replacement call does not completely incorporate the meaning of the insufficient bid, if the TD judges that there is an excellent chance of the board being playable with no influence from the additional information from the insufficient bid. I think that would allow many more boards to be played normally. But it is practicable only if there is an escape mechanism in case the additional information should after all have an influence on the result - and L27C2 is not good enough for that, since it only comes into effect when the contract is different. The missing possibility of adjusting for problems during play seems to suggest that the lawmakers really did intend a very strict interpretation of "incorporates" - with L27C2 in existence only to cater for the case where the offender corrects to a call he would not normally have made. Though I admit that there is a certain pure logic in the strict interpretation, I think it is a pity - it would be better to allow more hands to be played normally, with a possibility of adjusted score if something goes wrong. On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:42:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement >'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may >let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to >him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems to me that even Grattan's suggestion of using L27C when unsure can lead to problems during the play that L27C2 cannot solve. I would very much like to find some (not clearly illegal) excuse for allowing a loose interpretation of "incorporates" with the possibility of later adjustment, but I currently do not seem to be able to find such an excuse. If anybody else can, I'll be happy to hear about it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 04:25:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:25:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would very much like to find some (not clearly illegal) excuse for allowing a loose interpretation of "incorporates" with the possibility of later adjustment, but I currently do not seem to be able to find such an excuse. If anybody else can, I'll be happy to hear about it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. * * * The "loose" interpretation of "incorporates" is easily possible. The WBF and European Zone have not yet interpreted "incorporates", so the Danish Regulating Authority can issue a temporary "loose" interpretation. Difficult to see any possibility of a later adjustment, given that Law 27C1 specifically varies Law 16D. But perhaps Law 12B1 and Law 12A1 could be collectively used to counterbalance a "loose" interpretation of "incorporates". Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 12 11:43:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:43:45 EST Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: In a message dated 12/12/2007 06:32:14 GMT Standard Time, eitan.bridge at gmail.com writes: Not necessarily so. See the second half of law 68B, which would appear to apply to the case in question. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071212/858e2304/attachment-0001.htm From eitan.bridge at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 11:52:13 2007 From: eitan.bridge at gmail.com (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:52:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 12/12/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > This ruling can go either way, and I'd like to know which way we're > all going to rule this. We really ought to have some guidance from the > WBF on this one. > > So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case: New 2008 Law 70E2 empowers the regulating authority to regulate on this issue. If there is a clear directive from the local regulating authority then at least the rulings will be consistent. For better or for worse, my NBO has determined that (if no contrary statement is made) in leading (including trumps), the highest is deemed played; in trumping anotherit has greatly reduced the amount of arguing and dissension regarding claims. A Reg Auth could also add that in claimimg to win a trick led by another player, the lowest card (or the highest) is deemed to be played. In the absence of WBF guidance, if regulating authorities add regulations such as or similar to these then the endless and pointless discussions that Herman so rightly protests would be replaced by consistent rulings within the NBO concerned. Eitan Levy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071212/d84a8890/attachment.htm From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 00:00:27 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:00:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4760680B.1080904@hotmail.com> Thanks a lot for the answers so far (I know that this mailing list is not really intended for these simple questions, but I hope it give all of you some relaxing away from more serious discussions avout he laws :) ) Additional questions at the bottom of this mail... Koen Grauwels wrote: > > Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both > West and I are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. West did > send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the best player > at the table, the other 3 players are at best intermediate. > Mail be West: > "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. > South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. > North East South West > C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A > H:xx D: 1098 > North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs > for me and the rest is for you". West immediatly protests because he > still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone). > Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because of > the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which some of > the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which sequence the > cards come on the table; according to North first club Queen and then > Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence of club Queen > followed by the Ten is not important because further play after the > claim should be cancelled. > The Tournement director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make in > case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East will make > his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of normal play. > Other play by East would be unrealistic and should therefor not be > taken into account according the rules. Because East now has left only > Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. There are no other > possibilities. > I rememeber that some years ago there was a similar case at a World > championship. Declarer claimed and would make his contract. The opps > protest and demand to continue the play. When continuing the play the > declarer makes an error (caused by the rumour at the table) and goes > down. The TD has given the claimed tricks to the declarer as normal > play and has cancelled the play and error that happened after the > claim at the table." > My comments: > - East confirmed that he did first Club Q on the table (that was after > the claim and after the dicussions at the table). > - If East does not know that North still has Club J then it is not > unrealistic that we would play Club Q instead of club T? I agree that > play can not continue after cards are shown, but the 'play' of the > club Q indicates that it is a possibility? Also the claim in itself > indicates it because East did not know that West could still have > Heart Ace. > - I ruled 3 tricks for N-S (Club Q followed by club T). I'm not 100% > happy with that ruling as I don't want to discourage claims and > probably West has a point that the 'play' of club Q can have been > caused by the rumours at the table. > Your comments? > Thanks a lot! > Koen > Seems like there is a concensus that my ruling was very bad and that E-W should have given 4 tricks. For playing club Q or T do you take into account the level of East player or is this more following a rule..In cases like this you always assume he plays low first? One or Four tricks for E-W?: - If East claims two club tricks, and immediatly follows this by tabling Club Q, followed by the T - If East claims two club tricks, North looks confused and East therefor tables Club Q, followed by the T - If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and East plays club Q after which West claims the rest of tricks? - If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and West shows his cards (...is West claiming now?) - If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and East plays club Q followed by a low heart? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071213/96eaf182/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 13 02:54:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:54:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <0nfll3to4g355m25o90ejq6tmca72g0t1f@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001301c83d72$bc768870$fcd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:14 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal: >> >>>What should the TD do if the contract could not "well have been >>>different", but the non-offending side is damaged in the play? >>>- either because the same contract is reached in a different >>>way >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>Rub of the green? > > Perhaps. But then I wonder why a different contract is not also just > rub of the green. > >>Jesper Dybdal: >> >>>or because the offending side becomes defenders and defend >>>better because of information from the insufficient bid. >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>Now _that_ is a paradox. Law 27C2 only applies if Law 27C1 is >>used first. And Law 27C1 says that the replacement call >>"incorporates" the information of the insufficient bid, so >>there is not any illegal information outstanding from the >>insufficient bid. > > That is true if "incorporates" is interpreted quite literally. > > I would prefer a loose interpretation of "incorporates" where the TD > could use L27C even if the replacement call does not completely > incorporate the meaning of the insufficient bid, if the TD judges that > there is an excellent chance of the board being playable with no > influence from the additional information from the insufficient bid. > > I think that would allow many more boards to be played normally. But it > is practicable only if there is an escape mechanism in case the > additional information should after all have an influence on the result > - and L27C2 is not good enough for that, since it only comes into effect > when the contract is different. > > The missing possibility of adjusting for problems during play seems to > suggest that the lawmakers really did intend a very strict > interpretation of "incorporates" - with L27C2 in existence only to cater > for the case where the offender corrects to a call he would not normally > have made. Though I admit that there is a certain pure logic in the > strict interpretation, I think it is a pity - it would be better to > allow more hands to be played normally, with a possibility of adjusted > score if something goes wrong. > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:42:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>+=+ I take the view that when unsure whether the replacement >>'incorporates' the meaning of the insufficient bid the Director may >>let the play continue and, if at the end of the hand it is evident to >>him that he should not have done so, fly to Law 27C2. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It seems to me that even Grattan's suggestion of using L27C when unsure > can lead to problems during the play that L27C2 cannot solve. > > I would very much like to find some (not clearly illegal) excuse for > allowing a loose interpretation of "incorporates" with the possibility > of later adjustment, but I currently do not seem to be able to find such > an excuse. If anybody else can, I'll be happy to hear about it. > -- +=+ This correspondence highlights the same variations of opinion as have arisen in the DSC and that have arrested our progress. We have failed so far to light on anything in Law 27 to mitigate the absolute requirement of 'incorporates'. Some, but not all, would wish to find a margin of tolerance but in Shanghai when we set the law no such suggestion came to the fore and, with some justification, the stricter school of thought is now saying that was done has been done. As regards 27C2 there may, for example, be extra information in the substituted call and the knowledge that it cannot apply to the hand in question may be held to have assisted choice of contract. In 27C1 there is an exclusion restricting the effect that use of the information from the withdrawn bid may have on the selection of the contract. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 13 12:31:50 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:31:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <006b01c83cbf$dc1d0a90$cfd2403e@Mildred> <475FEA76.2040903@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008f01c83d7b$c8e2aef0$fcd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ That was the expressed wish. However, there is now > considerable doubt about the realisation of it within the near > future anyway. One member of the former drafting group of > seven is keen to pursue the idea, one is at best lukewarm, > three have stated their opinion that we should not attempt to > go forward at this time. > The disagreement takes away corporate authority from > any advice or illustration anyone may produce and reduces it > to personal opinion. As for interpretation of the 2007 Laws, > I presume that in principle the August 1998 WBFLC minute > is still applicable so that interim decisions are at Zonal level > until the WBF Laws Committee next meets. > > [nige1] > > That's a pity but it would be more of a loss ... > > [A] If the appendix had the force of law. > > [B] If the primary purpose of the appendix was to refine director's > judgement in borderline cases. > > Instead, we are given to understand that the primary purpose of the > appendix was to try to resolve English ambiguities in TNLB. IMO the > dissenting WBFLC "gang of three" are correct if they feel that > corrections and clarifications would be better made in place in TNLB, > rather than be relegated to an appendix. > > After all, this new edition is the product of many wise people and a > decade of work. It's main use is for players and directors to quickly > access relevant legislation. For the sake of such readers, it would be > better to take a little more time to get TNLB right than to publish it > with what amounts to a separate list of corrigenda. > +=+ The leading dissentient (with whom two others have lined up) says that the laws are clearly stated and do not need the crutch of further explanation. One member, not of the three, observes that if this is the case there is no margin of tolerance in 27C1, the requirement is absolute that what the withdrawn bid conveys must be contained within the meaning of the substituted call. In my view this is where we are today. My understanding of the purpose of an appendix is that it was to illustrate the law, not to interpret it. One member of the DSC says that any example must be unarguable and not introduce controversy. In other words, there must be nothing in the appendix to bend the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Dec 13 12:40:34 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:40:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> [Koen Grauwels] Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both West and I are (inexperienced and playing) Club directors. West did send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the best player at the table, the other 3 players are at best intermediate. Mail be West: "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. North East South West C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A H:xx D: 1098 North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs for me and the rest is for you". West immediately protests because he still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone). Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because of the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which some of the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which sequence the cards come on the table; according to North first club Queen and then Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence of club Queen followed by the Ten is not important because further play after the claim should be cancelled. The Tournament director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make in case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East will make his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of normal play. Other play by East would be unrealistic and should therefore not be taken into account according the rules. Because East now has left only Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. There are no other possibilities. [nige1] North East South West C:x C:Q10 dummy C: J H:AT8 H:xx D: 9xx Suppose this had been the ending. From East's point of view the position may look the same. But, in this ending, when North leads a club, East must crocodile coup CQ to take 2 tricks. CT takes only one trick. Hence, IMO, on Koen's actual hand, either ruling is arguable. BLMLers have long opined that the WBFLC should provide more comprehensive guidelines for such rulings. I agree. It would be even better, IMO, to simplify the law to make all such disputes unnecessary. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 13 16:01:45 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:01:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> References: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Guthrie wrote: > I agree. It would be even better, IMO, to simplify the law to make all > such disputes unnecessary. Here's such a simplification: claims are illegal. Concessions are illegal. All hands must be played to completion. How well does that work? From blml at dybdal.dk Thu Dec 13 20:12:23 2007 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:12:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6i03m35b9qp49ikmk3ucoblp4jvju36i6i@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:25:31 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The "loose" interpretation of "incorporates" is easily possible. >The WBF and European Zone have not yet interpreted "incorporates", >so the Danish Regulating Authority can issue a temporary "loose" >interpretation. Yes - that part is easy enough. >Difficult to see any possibility of a later adjustment, given that >Law 27C1 specifically varies Law 16D. > >But perhaps Law 12B1 and Law 12A1 could be collectively used to >counterbalance a "loose" interpretation of "incorporates". Perhaps. But I am not quite happy about the idea of using L12B1/L12A1 to - almost - effectively reinstate L16D in a situation where L27C1 explicitly says that L16D does not apply. Thanks to you and to Grattan for the responses. I think we will have to go for either the strict interpretation or the somewhat distasteful use of L12B1/L12A1. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 13 21:46:26 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:46:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6i03m35b9qp49ikmk3ucoblp4jvju36i6i@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <005601c83dd2$1e38e210$e1ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:25:31 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>The "loose" interpretation of "incorporates" is easily possible. >>The WBF and European Zone have not yet interpreted "incorporates", >>so the Danish Regulating Authority can issue a temporary "loose" >>interpretation. > > Yes - that part is easy enough. > >>Difficult to see any possibility of a later adjustment, given that >>Law 27C1 specifically varies Law 16D. >> >>But perhaps Law 12B1 and Law 12A1 could be collectively used to >>counterbalance a "loose" interpretation of "incorporates". > > Perhaps. But I am not quite happy about the idea of using L12B1/L12A1 > to - almost - effectively reinstate L16D in a situation where L27C1 > explicitly says that L16D does not apply. > > Thanks to you and to Grattan for the responses. I think we will have to > go for either the strict interpretation or the somewhat distasteful use > of L12B1/L12A1. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. < +=+ I have not quite got the picture. How use 12B1 and 12A1? How to avoid tangling with 12B2? If there is a violation then only when there is no rectification do you escape 12B2. I would like to be clearer about the suggestion of 12B1/12A1. (The dictionary definition of 'incorporate' is "to include or be included as a part or member of a united whole", "to form a united whole or mass".) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 23:04:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:04:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>I agree. It would be even better, IMO, to simplify the law to >>make all such disputes unnecessary. Ed Reppert >Here's such a simplification: claims are illegal. Concessions >are illegal. All hands must be played to completion. How well >does that work? Richard Hills: Nice irony from Ed, but Jeff Rubens in all seriousness proposed just such a policy. In a Bridge World Editorial, Jeff argued that for matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds (popular in the ACBL), the delays caused by disputed claims outweigh the time saved by indisputable claims. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 14 00:51:45 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:51:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c83de3$1ef1c210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Nice irony from Ed, but Jeff Rubens in all seriousness proposed > just such a policy. In a Bridge World Editorial, Jeff argued > that for matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds (popular in the > ACBL), the delays caused by disputed claims outweigh the time > saved by indisputable claims. I fully agree with this, it matches my own experience. But this experience is not limited to matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds, it is general. And I have long argued that the only way a claim can really save time is if the claimer exposes his remaining cards, one at a time in the sequence he intends to play them, at the rate of at least about three cards per second. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 14 00:59:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:59:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005601c83dd2$1e38e210$e1ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >(The dictionary definition of 'incorporate' is "to include or be >included as a part or member of a united whole", "to form a >united whole or mass".) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Law 27C2 provides no rectification for those Law 27C1 situations in which odd tricks, denomination and declarer are unaltered, but perhaps instead unauthorised information sees a killing defence found. Under a dictionary defence of "incorporates" that killing defence would have been found anyway, since the substituted call incorporates the killing defence information of the insufficient bid. But such a strict dictionary definition of "incorporates" means that in many insufficient bid situations Law 27C1 would not apply, with the insufficient bidder's partner being barred from the auction. The Danish NBO is trying for an alternative approach for more normal auctions to be provisionally allowed, but a backstop of the Director being able to change his mind. For example, provisionally allowed auctions (with possible later adjusted scores) are permitted to occur under Law 13A and Law 16C2(c). Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I have not quite got the picture. How use 12B1 and 12A1? >How to avoid tangling with 12B2? >If there is a violation then only when there is no rectification >do you escape 12B2. >I would like to be clearer about the suggestion of 12B1/12A1. Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Richard Hills: Oops. My 12B1 and 12A1 suggestion was illegal, since 12B2 blocks such a creative reversal of 27C1. It seems that Jesper Dybdal and the Danish NBO will have to wait for 2018 before they can hope for a more flexible Law 27C2. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 14 01:58:27 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:58:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c83de3$1ef1c210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83de3$1ef1c210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4761D533.5010407@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] Nice irony from Ed, but Jeff Rubens in all seriousness proposed just such a policy. In a Bridge World Editorial, Jeff argued that for matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds (popular in the ACBL), the delays caused by disputed claims outweigh the time saved by indisputable claims. [Sven Pran] I fully agree with this, it matches my own experience. But this experience is not limited to matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds, it is general. And I have long argued that the only way a claim can really save time is if the claimer exposes his remaining cards, one at a time in the sequence he intends to play them, at the rate of at least about three cards per second. [nige1] Ed Reppert is correct :):):) Banning claims would probably save some time and avoid lots of questionable rulings. The trouble is that it would be exhaust and annoy defenders to sweat blood trying to defeat a contract, when declarer has the rest of the tricks on top. Sven's way of claiming is better, It eliminates most disputes and speeds up the game. IMO, best is the on-line method. Declarer exposes his hand and names a number of tricks. To dispute the claim defenders play on double dummy. Declarer carries on single dummy. This accelerates the game and eliminates 99% of the palaver of claiming. Admittedly, It does open up a highly improbable new offence. If a sly declarer claims, hoping to get clues for a two-way finesse (or the equivalent), then even beginners are savvy enough to call the director to thwart declarer and impose a penalty on him. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 02:00:35 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:00:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c83de3$1ef1c210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83de3$1ef1c210$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712131700o43fcb887o7d078e6bd0c3a77f@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: > > And I have long argued that the only way a claim can really save time is if > the claimer exposes his remaining cards, one at a time in the sequence he > intends to play them, at the rate of at least about three cards per second. > I never understood the appeal of the one-card-at-a-time idea. When defending, I want to see declarer's whole hand right away to figure out what my partner has and whether or not declarer's ruffs are legal. I thought the laws require facing all of the cards first. The one-card-at-a-time method annoys me. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 14 08:40:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712131700o43fcb887o7d078e6bd0c3a77f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c83e24$97cfec70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > And I have long argued that the only way a claim can really save time is > if > > the claimer exposes his remaining cards, one at a time in the sequence > he > > intends to play them, at the rate of at least about three cards per > second. > > > > I never understood the appeal of the one-card-at-a-time idea. When > defending, I want to see declarer's whole hand right away to figure > out what my partner has and whether or not declarer's ruffs are legal. > I thought the laws require facing all of the cards first. The > one-card-at-a-time method annoys me. Why really? With say 6 cards left my way of claiming takes a maximum of two seconds and hardly needs any explanation because everything is immediately clear. (And defenders are protected from Declarer inventing a new line of play if he discovers that his claim is flawed) How much verbal explanation can you give in two seconds after showing all your cards simultaneously? In either case you see all Declarer's cards and (should) know everything relevant for the claim before you decide how to play your own cards and whether to challenge the claim. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 14 09:43:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:43:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <475F122E.60508@hotmail.com> <475FA692.2060707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47624218.5000501@skynet.be> Eitan Levy wrote: > > > On 12/12/07, *Herman De Wael* > wrote: > > > This ruling can go either way, and I'd like to know which way we're > all going to rule this. We really ought to have some guidance from the > WBF on this one. > > So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case: > > > New 2008 Law 70E2 empowers the regulating authority to regulate on this > issue. If there is a clear directive from the local regulating authority > then at least the rulings will be consistent. For better or for worse, > my NBO has determined that (if no contrary statement is made) in leading > (including trumps), the highest is deemed played; in trumping anotherit > has greatly reduced the amount of arguing and dissension regarding claims. > A Reg Auth could also add that in claimimg to win a trick led by another > player, the lowest card (or the highest) is deemed to be played. > In the absence of WBF guidance, if regulating authorities add > regulations such as or similar to these then the endless and pointless > discussions that Herman so rightly protests would be replaced by > consistent rulings within the NBO concerned. > I agree that it is better this way, but why should we impose on all 150 NBO's the task of spelling this out? If the WBF can do it for them? It seems to me that if a particular NBO wants to make changes to the WBF position, it can be allowed to do so. Then at least, they can have a good answer to the question "why is that ruling different in Israel from Belgium" - "because we want it that way". Now the answer would be - "we don't know, they decided it thus, we did it this way". Yet again, the WBF has given NBO's an option they don't really want or need, and as a consequence, rulings will differ between countries for no good reason. > Eitan Levy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 269.17.1/1181 - Release Date: 11/12/2007 17:05 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 14 09:49:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:49:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> References: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47624384.3080004@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Koen Grauwels] > Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both > West and I are (inexperienced and playing) Club directors. West did > send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the best player > at the table, the other 3 players are at best intermediate. > Mail be West: > "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. > South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs. > North East South West > C:Jxxx C:Q10 dummy H: A > H:xx D: 1098 > North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs > for me and the rest is for you". West immediately protests because he > still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone). > Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because of > the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which some of > the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which sequence the > cards come on the table; according to North first club Queen and then > Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence of club Queen > followed by the Ten is not important because further play after the > claim should be cancelled. > The Tournament director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make in > case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East will make > his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of normal play. > Other play by East would be unrealistic and should therefore not be > taken into account according the rules. Because East now has left only > Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. There are no other > possibilities. > > [nige1] > North East South West > C:x C:Q10 dummy C: J > H:AT8 H:xx D: 9xx > Suppose this had been the ending. From East's point of view the > position may look the same. But, in this ending, when North leads a > club, East must crocodile coup CQ to take 2 tricks. CT takes only one > trick. Hence, IMO, on Koen's actual hand, either ruling is arguable. > I don't believe this one causes any troubles - and it says nothing about the other one. You take the view that only the cards are important, but that is not the case. We must also consider the mind of the player. In the player's mind, his Q and T are both high. We should have a rule telling us which cards are normal in certain situations. That rule must be the same in both lies of the cards. There are two possible rules: - when winning a trick, it is always done with the lowest of the possible cards; or - when winning a trick, player can play any of his winning cards. Under both rules, playing the 10 is normal. Therefore, in the second case, the Jack will always win the trick and declarer gets some more. But in the first case, the outcome depends on which rule we use in determining normal play. > BLMLers have long opined that the WBFLC should provide more > comprehensive guidelines for such rulings. > > I agree. It would be even better, IMO, to simplify the law to make all > such disputes unnecessary. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Dec 14 12:22:02 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:22:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <47624384.3080004@skynet.be> References: <47611A32.7060508@ntlworld.com> <47624384.3080004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4762675A.6080809@ntlworld.com> [nige1] North East South West C:x C:Q10 dummy C: J H:AT8 H:xx D: 9xx Suppose this had been the ending. From East's point of view the position may look the same. But, in this ending, when North leads a club, East must crocodile coup CQ to take 2 tricks. CT takes only one trick. Hence, IMO, on Koen's actual hand, either ruling is arguable. [Herman de Wael] I don't believe this one causes any troubles - and it says nothing about the other one. You take the view that only the cards are important, but that is not the case. We must also consider the mind of the player. In the player's mind, his Q and T are both high. We should have a rule telling us which cards are normal in certain situations. That rule must be the same in both lies of the cards. There are two possible rules: - when winning a trick, it is always done with the lowest of the possible cards; or - when winning a trick, player can play any of his winning cards. Under both rules, playing the 10 is normal. Therefore, in the second case, the Jack will always win the trick and declarer gets some more. But in the first case, the outcome depends on which rule we use in determining normal play. [nige1] OK Herman. I agree with you. By the way, my example had (another) stupid typo, corrected below North East South West C:x C:Q10 dummy C: J H:AT8 H:xx H: 9xx From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 14 12:58:05 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:58:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c83e24$97cfec70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83e24$97cfec70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47626FCD.2000600@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] With say 6 cards left my way of claiming takes a maximum of two seconds and hardly needs any explanation because everything is immediately clear. (And defenders are protected from Declarer inventing a new line of play if he discovers that his claim is flawed) How much verbal explanation can you give in two seconds after showing all your cards simultaneously? In either case you see all Declarer's cards and (should) know everything relevant for the claim before you decide how to play your own cards and whether to challenge the claim. [nige1] Sven suggested this some time ago. It seems an improvement on the current legal farrago. David Burn should approve because most claims would be complete and unequivocal: the visible order of declarer's claim cards usually remove any dispute about declarer's intentions. It is understandable that there are directors who demur at such drastic simplifications. They remove an opportunity for them to decide events by using their "judgement". But the new laws seem to provide many new opportunities to compensate for this small loss. And ordinary players like me will be delighted. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 14 15:41:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:41:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines Message-ID: <47629606.6070509@skynet.be> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines imply that: - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; - suits are cashed top-down; - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take the trick. all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows from the deal. Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. Remember it is only a proposal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 14 15:52:04 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:52:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19E72BB6-46F9-48D4-A215-A3D9A6616BDA@starpower.net> On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >> (The dictionary definition of 'incorporate' is "to include or be >> included as a part or member of a united whole", "to form a >> united whole or mass".) > > Richard Hills: > > Law 27C2 provides no rectification for those Law 27C1 situations in > which odd tricks, denomination and declarer are unaltered, but perhaps > instead unauthorised information sees a killing defence found. > > Under a dictionary defence of "incorporates" that killing defence > would > have been found anyway, since the substituted call incorporates the > killing defence information of the insufficient bid. > > But such a strict dictionary definition of "incorporates" means > that in > many insufficient bid situations Law 27C1 would not apply, with the > insufficient bidder's partner being barred from the auction. > > The Danish NBO is trying for an alternative approach for more normal > auctions to be provisionally allowed, but a backstop of the Director > being able to change his mind. For example, provisionally allowed > auctions (with possible later adjusted scores) are permitted to occur > under Law 13A and Law 16C2(c). > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ I have not quite got the picture. How use 12B1 and 12A1? >> How to avoid tangling with 12B2? >> If there is a violation then only when there is no rectification >> do you escape 12B2. >> I would like to be clearer about the suggestion of 12B1/12A1. > > Law 12B2: > > The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the > rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or > advantageous to either side. > > Richard Hills: > > Oops. My 12B1 and 12A1 suggestion was illegal, since 12B2 blocks > such a creative reversal of 27C1. > > It seems that Jesper Dybdal and the Danish NBO will have to wait > for 2018 before they can hope for a more flexible Law 27C2. The only issue here is the extent to which TPTB will allow individual RAs to "interpret" (i.e. redefine) "incorporates". If a loose interpretation that would allow "for more normal auctions" is permitted, then "damage" in the play -- which, as Richard explains, cannot occur if "incorporates" is strictly defined -- becomes possible. That is damage that the authors of L27 did not contemplate, and for which they provided no rectification. So if it is permissible to start down that road from "incorporates", L12B need not get in the way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 14 17:09:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:09:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47629606.6070509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c83e6b$a5601760$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. > > Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines > imply that: > - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; > - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > - suits are cashed top-down; > - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take > the trick. > all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows > from the deal. > > Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. > Remember it is only a proposal. I assume this is to apply in contested claim situations, and then the proposal has my full support both in words and in contents except for one small change (affecting the first two lines in the proposal above): Suits (including the trump suit) are cashed in an order that proves most advantageous to opposing side. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 14 16:31:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:31:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47629606.6070509@skynet.be> References: <47629606.6070509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <42344B90-782F-4259-9EE8-C843182675CD@starpower.net> On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are > normal. > > Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines > imply that: > - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; Such a rule would seem to be a direct contradiction of L70C, which would turn into meaningless nonsense. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 14 16:08:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <47626FCD.2000600@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c83e24$97cfec70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47626FCD.2000600@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > With say 6 cards left my way of claiming takes a maximum of two > seconds and hardly needs any explanation because everything is > immediately clear. (And defenders are protected from Declarer > inventing a new line of play if he discovers that his claim is flawed) > > How much verbal explanation can you give in two seconds after showing > all your cards simultaneously? > > In either case you see all Declarer's cards and (should) know > everything relevant for the claim before you decide how to play your > own cards and whether to challenge the claim. > > [nige1] > Sven suggested this some time ago. It seems an improvement on the > current legal farrago. David Burn should approve because most claims > would be complete and unequivocal: the visible order of declarer's > claim cards usually remove any dispute about declarer's intentions. > > It is understandable that there are directors who demur at such > drastic simplifications. They remove an opportunity for them to decide > events by using their "judgement". But the new laws seem to provide > many new opportunities to compensate for this small loss. And ordinary > players like me will be delighted. I for one would not be delighted at being unable to claim when I have the rest of the tricks for certain and an opponent in the tank for five minutes dithering over what to lead. Two seconds is more than enough for "I have the rest". Nor would I be delighted when I have a clear and obvious conditional claim ("if the long club doesn't set up I'll take the heart finesse for the overtrick"). There are any number of situations in which one can have a perfectly reasonable and valid claim but in which the order one would play one's cards is not yet determined. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Fri Dec 14 15:57:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:57:28 EST Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines Message-ID: In a message dated 14/12/2007 14:40:32 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; This is controversial. A player has AKQJT98 AKQJT None A and opens Seven Spades. When a club is led and not ruffed he claims. Herman would have him always failing for not stating "drawing trumps". From andre.kriner at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:11:45 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:11:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e5m3hege2hi8fo478r7mhi3ja6vts4hb@4ax.com> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:57:28 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 14/12/2007 14:40:32 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be >writes: > >- suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > >This is controversial. A player has AKQJT98 AKQJT None A and opens Seven >Spades. When a club is led and not ruffed he claims. Herman would have him >always failing for not stating "drawing trumps". Sorry, but Herman's first point was: > - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; Greeting, Andre From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Fri Dec 14 18:40:53 2007 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:40:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines Message-ID: <23BECEFEE9C7471B86EBB7ACAE911BF6@BridgeNZL3> >In a message dated 14/12/2007 14:40:32 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be >writes: > >- suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > >This is controversial. A player has AKQJT98 AKQJT None A and opens Seven >Spades. When a club is led and not ruffed he claims. Herman would have him >always failing for not stating "drawing trumps". Sorry, but Herman's first point was: > - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; Surely most claims at lower levels fail because declarer doesn't know all the trumps are not gone! From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Fri Dec 14 17:17:27 2007 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:17:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines Message-ID: Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines imply that: - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; - suits are cashed top-down; - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take the trick. all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows from the deal. Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. Remember it is only a proposal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html [Martino] Surely this too has it's pitfalls. If Declarer is unaware of outstanding trumps then he may try to cash long suits without drawing trumps. Maybe just add "If outstanding trumps are mentioned, then trumps drawn first" :) From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 14 19:07:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000001c83e6b$a5601760$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c83e6b$a5601760$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4762C676.3090406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. >> >> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines >> imply that: >> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; >> - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; >> - suits are cashed top-down; >> - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take >> the trick. >> all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows >> from the deal. >> >> Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. >> Remember it is only a proposal. > > I assume this is to apply in contested claim situations, and then the > proposal has my full support both in words and in contents except for one > small change (affecting the first two lines in the proposal above): > > Suits (including the trump suit) are cashed in an order that proves most > advantageous to opposing side. > No Sven, that is not what is needed. The definition above defines "normal" lines. Plural. After that, the TD will select the worst normal line for claimer. That is the one you name above, but it is not needed to write that in the definition of what is a normal line. OK? > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 15 01:42:06 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:42:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4762C676.3090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c83eb3$51d8f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. > >> > >> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines > >> imply that: > >> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; > >> - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > >> - suits are cashed top-down; > >> - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take > >> the trick. > >> all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows > >> from the deal. > >> > >> Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. > >> Remember it is only a proposal. > > > > I assume this is to apply in contested claim situations, and then the > > proposal has my full support both in words and in contents except for > one > > small change (affecting the first two lines in the proposal above): > > > > Suits (including the trump suit) are cashed in an order that proves most > > advantageous to opposing side. > > > > No Sven, that is not what is needed. > > The definition above defines "normal" lines. Plural. After that, the > TD will select the worst normal line for claimer. That is the one you > name above, but it is not needed to write that in the definition of > what is a normal line. > OK? In that case I will say just: "Suits are cashed in any order" with no exception or special consideration for the trump suit. And I will specifically prohibit drawing trumps first unless the claimer demonstrates prior awareness of outstanding trumps if drawing them proves advantageous for him. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 15 12:32:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:32:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c83eb3$51d8f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c83eb3$51d8f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4763BB60.50508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. >>>> >>>> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines >>>> imply that: >>>> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; >>>> - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; >>>> - suits are cashed top-down; >>>> - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take >>>> the trick. >>>> all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows >>>> from the deal. >>>> >>>> Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. > > In that case I will say just: "Suits are cashed in any order" with no > exception or special consideration for the trump suit. > Well, that is a matter of content - That is up to the majority to decide. > And I will specifically prohibit drawing trumps first unless the claimer > demonstrates prior awareness of outstanding trumps if drawing them proves > advantageous for him. > No, because that does not solve the problem of a player claiming after the lead, with 10 top trumps and nothing but high cards. Lines that do not start with drawing trumps are not normal. Your other consideration is still valid. If it is sensible to assume that the player forgot that there were trumps out, then it is not normal to start with trumps (if for certainty, he should have said so, I agree). That is included in my list above, which talks of drawing trumps until none are left, while cashing trumps is done last. So again Sven, your comment is valid, but it is not about defining normal lines, but about deciding if a particular line is normal. If claimer does not demonstrate awareness of outstanding trumps, the line of playing them is not the "normal" line, as it is stated that a "normal" line is the one of keeping trumps till last. We are in agreement, you know! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 15 12:36:09 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:36:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <42344B90-782F-4259-9EE8-C843182675CD@starpower.net> References: <47629606.6070509@skynet.be> <42344B90-782F-4259-9EE8-C843182675CD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4763BC29.4070504@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are >> normal. >> >> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines >> imply that: >> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; > > Such a rule would seem to be a direct contradiction of L70C, which > would turn into meaningless nonsense. > No it's not. L70C talks about outstanding trumps that are likely to be forgotten. If claimer demonstrates that he knows there are trumps out, as with claiming after the opening lead with less than 13 trumps between the hands, then we need to state that all normal lines start with drawing trumps. Read my last line too: all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows from the deal. Of course if it is believable that declarer has miscounted a trump, then his normal lines do not include cashing an extra one just to be safe. He shall play as many as needed to draw them all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 15 12:41:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:41:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4763BD50.7000706@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 14/12/2007 14:40:32 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > > - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > > This is controversial. A player has AKQJT98 AKQJT None A and opens Seven > Spades. When a club is led and not ruffed he claims. Herman would have him > always failing for not stating "drawing trumps". > > No, of course not, but if you snip my sentences, you will get lost. read the full list: - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; Remark the difference between trumps being drawn and them being cashed. The only normal lines on the above lay-out are : (on a heart lead just to have one more thing to say) - heart trick taken with the 10; - spade Ace, King, Queen; - if still needed, spade Jack, Ten, possibly even Nine - either Heart Ace or Club Ace; - the other hearts and clubs, top down - the spade Jack, Ten, ..., Eight. If the diamond seven is among all these high cards, then of course the diamond seven is played last. Consequence of my sentence "unless there exists a reason that ...". Playing the beer card last is _A_ reason. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 15 12:46:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:46:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4763BE8B.7080508@skynet.be> Martin Oyston wrote: > > Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines > > Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are normal. > > Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines > imply that: > - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; > - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed last; > - suits are cashed top-down; > - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to take > the trick. > all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he knows > from the deal. > > Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not content. > Remember it is only a proposal. [Martino] Surely this too has it's pitfalls. If Declarer is unaware of outstanding trumps then he may try to cash long suits without drawing trumps. Maybe just add "If outstanding trumps are mentioned, then trumps drawn first" :) (don't put your comment below a name with --: it does not get reprised in the answer) Martin, this is a contentious point. I do not wish to take it up. Americans routinely say "drawing trumps". Belgians never say it. That in itself is not a proof of having forgotten them. The example of gampas illustrates that claims are possible, and acceptible, without stating that trumps are drawn. If the TD is satisfied that claimer knows trumps are not yet drawn (and that he knows how many are left), then the TD should have a guidance about what are the normal lines. Therefore a rule which says that the only normal line is to draw trumps first, is needed. It is still up to the TD to decided whether claimer knows about outstanding trumps or not, but if he does, it is not normal for him not to draw them. So if we write a rule, this has got to be it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Fri Dec 14 18:45:55 2007 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:45:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak Message-ID: Can you please offer a quick ruling on this for me The Deal: Bd 7, Dlr S, Both Vul N S - H JT94 D K965 C QT753 W E S AJT52 S KQ7 H A H 652 D 4 D AQT873 C AKJ982 C 6 South S 98643 H KQ873 D J2 C 4 The Bidding: S W N E 2H* X P 5D P 6C X P P 6S P P X all Pass * No alert After the auction West asks "How do you play 2H opener, and is told "Weak" West plays for 6-card Heart in South Result -2 West claims damage, having other options such as Diamond finesse in the play Also that the bidding would have been very different if the 2H bid had been alerted as weak tartan (which is what their agreement is) rather than weak single-suiter. How do you rule please? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4364 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071215/92de9f41/attachment-0001.bin From paul.vdm at skynet.be Sat Dec 15 08:34:52 2007 From: paul.vdm at skynet.be (Paul) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:34:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: <6g7uk3$1h2g8s@relay.skynet.be> The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : Dealer North, EW vulnerable. K J 10 9 8 5 W N O Z 5 3 1 C 1NT 2 C 10 8 7 2 3NT pas pas pas 5 4 A 7 6 7 6 4 A K 10 9 2 A K 9 3 Q 5 A J 9 7 3 Q 4 2 Q 3 2 Q J 8 J 6 4 K 10 8 6 North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 14/12/2007 11:29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071215/1d9b3a1f/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 15 15:13:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <6g7uk3$1h2g8s@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c83f24$a0ca6390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of Paul The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition"?. I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) ?: ? ? Dealer North, EW vulnerable. ? .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S .......53...................1C...1NT..2C .......T872............3NT..p....p....p .......5 4.............A76 764...........AKT92 AK93..........Q5 AJ973.........Q42 .......Q32 .......QJ8 .......J64 .......KT86 ? North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club against 3NT seems quite normal to me? How the behaviour by South can suggest implicit partnership understanding is beyond me. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Dec 15 16:24:21 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:24:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <000a01c83f24$a0ca6390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c83f24$a0ca6390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4763F1A5.2040902@ntlworld.com> [Paul] The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : Dealer North, EW vulnerable. .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S .......53...................1C...1NT..2C .......T872............3NT..p....p....p .......5 4.............A76 764...........AKT92 AK93..........Q5 AJ973.........Q42 .......Q32 .......QJ8 .......J64 .......KT86 North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club against 3NT seems quite normal to me? How the behaviour by South can suggest implicit partnership understanding is beyond me. [nige1] We walruses find South's behaviour suspicious. Some of us would double 1N. Most would double 3N, given that we seem to have an excellent lead and most of the high cards. Luckily, in the UK, we *do* have a mechanism that caters for this kind of occurrence. As I understand the protocol: We color-code the pysch and record it. If the director considers South's actions to be so suspicious that if many different South's duplicated his behaviour then most would be using UI or a CPU then he may impose a penalty. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 15 17:00:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:00:45 EST Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 11:40:28 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: Remark the difference between trumps being drawn and them being cashed. OK, I agree I misunderstood. Apologies. So trumps are assumed to be drawn even if declarer does not state so. This I agree with in principle. It creates a problem, however, with the following hand Dummy S 9876 H 2 D 5432 C 5432. Declarer S AKQJT H A3 D AKQ C AKQ. Declarer is in Seven Spades on a heart lead, and claims, stating "drawing trumps". Or he claims without so stating. Many would regard it as against the spirit of the game, when trumps are 4-0, to force declarer to continue drawing all four, as this would be sub-novice-level play. Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 15 17:09:57 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:09:57 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 15:24:33 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [Paul] The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : Dealer North, EW vulnerable. .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S .......53...................1C...1NT..2C .......T872............3NT..p....p....p .......5 4.............A76 764...........AKT92 AK93..........Q5 AJ973.........Q42 .......Q32 .......QJ8 .......J64 .......KT86 North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club against 3NT seems quite normal to me? How the behaviour by South can suggest implicit partnership understanding is beyond me. [nige1] We walruses find South's behaviour suspicious. Some of us would double 1N. Most would double 3N, given that we seem to have an excellent lead and most of the high cards. Luckily, in the UK, we *do* have a mechanism that caters for this kind of occurrence. As I understand the protocol: We color-code the pysch and record it. If the director considers South's actions to be so suspicious that if many different South's duplicated his behaviour then most would be using UI or a CPU then he may impose a penalty. [paul lamford] Indeed, I agree with Nigel, only more so. To me this is an automatic fielding of the psyche by South, and the psyche should be classified as Red, and an adjusted score to 3NT redoubled +3 for East, plus the maximum procedural penalty against N-S. It is unacceptable for South to argue that North is probably the joker because E-W are vulnerable, until the psyche is exposed. This would give carte blanche for risk-free psyches at favourable. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Dec 15 17:38:41 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008f01c83d7b$c8e2aef0$fcd6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan: My understanding of the purpose of an appendix is that it was to illustrate the law, not to interpret it. ton: Now I understand better, we agreed to paint some pictures? Still a loss of course. ton From wrgptfan at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:50:47 2007 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:50:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 15/12/2007 15:24:33 GMT Standard Time, > guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: > [Paul] > The following occurred to me during a butler interclub > "competition" . > I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no > alerts) : > Dealer North, EW vulnerable. > .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S > .......53...................1C...1NT..2C > .......T872............3NT..p....p....p > .......5 > 4.............A76 > 764...........AKT92 > AK93..........Q5 > AJ973.........Q42 > .......Q32 > .......QJ8 > .......J64 > .......KT86 > North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead > by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the > bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to > react > if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? > > Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by > South? He has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and > leading a small club against 3NT seems quite normal to me? How the > behaviour by South can suggest implicit partnership understanding is > beyond me. > > [nige1] > We walruses find South's behaviour suspicious. Some of us would > double > 1N. Most would double 3N, given that we seem to have an excellent > lead > and most of the high cards. Luckily, in the UK, we *do* have a > mechanism that caters for this kind of occurrence. As I understand > the > protocol: > > We color-code the pysch and record it. If the director considers > South's actions to be so suspicious that if many different South's > duplicated his behaviour then most would be using UI or a CPU then he > may impose a penalty. > > [paul lamford] > Indeed, I agree with Nigel, only more so. To me this is an automatic > fielding of the psyche by South, and the psyche should be classified > as Red, and an > adjusted score to 3NT redoubled +3 for East, plus the maximum > procedural > penalty against N-S. It is unacceptable for South to argue that > North is probably > the joker because E-W are vulnerable, until the psyche is exposed. > This > would give carte blanche for risk-free psyches at favourable. > > I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx Kxx AQ. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 15 17:58:04 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:58:04 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 16:51:27 GMT Standard Time, wrgptfan at gmail.com writes: I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx Kxx AQ. And this is one off on either major suit lead. I am certainly not leading a club, but I am doubling and leading the QH. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 15 18:23:49 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:23:49 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 16:51:27 GMT Standard Time, wrgptfan at gmail.com writes: >I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x >J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx >Kxx AQ. [paul lamford] And the other things wrong with your suggested hand: a) the 4-4-3-2 hand would double, not bid 1NT b) the hand opposite would not bid 3NT, why would he think that even if partner had the DK there would be nine tricks? c) the hand is designed as a self-serving defence to explain your failure to double 3NT d) the 10-count is not an opening bid. No, I think you know someone must have psyched, and you have guessed is your partner when you fail to double. Not permitted, as I understand the laws. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 15 22:31:06 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:31:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > No, I think you know someone must have psyched, and you have > guessed is your > partner when you fail to double. Not permitted, as I understand > the laws. We have a different understanding. Psychs are legal. If you guess it's your partner who has psyched, and it's truly a guess, there is nothing illegal about that. The original post said "north has psyched before". Fine, but that is not sufficient data to allow a ruling of CPU. North has to have psyched *in this situation, with a similar bid, with this partner* or with other partners where this partner can be expected to know of it. And he has to have done it more than once. In England, I might rule this an amber psych and record it, but I'm not, on the evidence presented, ruling it red. Did anyone bother to ask South why he led a club? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Dec 16 02:00:01 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <47647891.4030500@aol.com> Hola blmlers! I may be missing something (or merely simpleminded) but why not demand that anyone claiming also state how he is going to play? I seem to recall this being suggested in the laws. And if he doesn't: in cases of any doubt (trumps out for example) rule against him. Even the fellow with ten trumps from the top and the aces in the other suits can say, without harm or undue effort, when he claims: drawing trumps and then the rest is high. (But in this case I'd probably assume he was aware of the necessity to first draw trumps even if he didn't mention it.) But, as above, if there is even the slightest doubt then I'd tend do decide against him. He should have stated his line of play. Ciao, JE From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 16 11:36:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:36:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4764FFA2.7010402@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 15/12/2007 11:40:28 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > > Remark the difference between trumps being drawn and them being cashed. > > OK, I agree I misunderstood. Apologies. So trumps are assumed to be drawn > even if declarer does not state so. This I agree with in principle. It creates a > problem, however, with the following hand Dummy S 9876 H 2 D 5432 C 5432. > Declarer S AKQJT H A3 D AKQ C AKQ. Declarer is in Seven Spades on a heart lead, > and claims, stating "drawing trumps". Or he claims without so stating. Many > would regard it as against the spirit of the game, when trumps are 4-0, to > force declarer to continue drawing all four, as this would be sub-novice-level > play. > I agree with your case, and I don't think it is a counter-example to my list, which starts with "unless there exists a reason to play otherwise ...". It is of course up to director to decidse whether the player in question is a sub-novice or not! > Paul Lamford > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 16 11:48:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47647891.4030500@aol.com> References: <47647891.4030500@aol.com> Message-ID: <47650286.4050904@skynet.be> Hello Jeff, sensible suggestions, maybe, but unworkable: Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola blmlers! I may be missing something (or merely simpleminded) but > why not demand that anyone claiming also state how he is going to play? > I seem to recall this being suggested in the laws. And if he doesn't: > in cases of any doubt (trumps out for example) rule against him. Isn't that what the laws say? Isn't that what we in fact do? Isn't that just the problem? Is there any doubt or not? Most of these cases are simple. We have some doubt, and we rule against. The difficult cases are the ones in which we have absolutely no doubt, but a colleague-director has the draconic view "if he did not mention, we rule against". Not that he has any doubt, no, but he wishes to Burn people at the stake. > Even > the fellow with ten trumps from the top and the aces in the other suits > can say, without harm or undue effort, when he claims: drawing trumps > and then the rest is high. Yes, he can, but he won't, because it's so obvious! And not a single opponent would ask for a director. And not a single director will rule against, if asked. Until, of course, some player does call the director. And the director is weak and can be influenced. And the player shouts a bit louder "he did not mention trumps". And the whole room is insensed at the silly ruling that follows. > (But in this case I'd probably assume he was > aware of the necessity to first draw trumps even if he didn't mention > it.) See, even you! > But, as above, if there is even the slightest doubt then I'd tend > do decide against him. He should have stated his line of play. Ciao, JE > And that is not the problem I was trying to tackle. I leave it to the director to rule if the player knew if, and how many, trumps are outstanding. If he rules that the player knew, then these rules tell him that not playing trumps is not a normal line. Maybe that is too easy, and I should not write rules for easy things, but the other things are not easy. Top-down cashing is not, for instance. See what my intention is? When writing "suits are cashed in any order" we cannot omit to also say "trumps are drawn first". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 16 12:56:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:56:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4764FFA2.7010402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c83fda$b4cfd940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > I agree with your case, and I don't think it is a counter-example to > my list, which starts with "unless there exists a reason to play > otherwise ...". > > It is of course up to director to decidse whether the player in > question is a sub-novice or not! As long as the suggested list is only an attempt to establish all alternatives for what shall be considered "normal play" and even starts with the word "unless..." I do not see how the list can be to any use for the Director in claim situations. He is still left with his own judgement on whether a particular line of play leading to the claim being defeated is "irrational" or "normal". As far as I know we already have universal agreements that when cashing a suit then that suit is to be played from the top, and when all cards are assumed high then the different suits can be played in any order (with no exception for the trump suit). Law 70C specifically prevents a claimer from pulling a possibly forgotten trump and leaves it to the Director to rule if there is any "normal" line of play that can give opponents trick(s) for such trump(s). So what does the suggested list give us that we don't already have? Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 16 13:36:40 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:36:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4755E1EE05932A78@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000e01c83fe0$5f253fc0$e3ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan: > > My understanding of the purpose of an appendix is that > it was to illustrate the law, not to interpret it. > > ton: > Now I understand better, we agreed to paint some pictures? > Still a loss of course. > > ton > +=+ 'illustrate' - "to clarify or explain by use of examples". One of our colleagues thinks we should try to identify "a short list of laws which are complicated enough to justify providing examples to assist the reader in comprehending how that law should be applied." I have touted the thought that maybe, as an interim measure with little immediate likelihood of a product at WBF level , the Zone 1 (EBL) Laws Committee might agree one or two examples illustrating the effect of laws where we think Directors might benefit. With some Regulating Authorities in Zone 1 switching to the 2007 Laws on January 1st I tend to think help, if help is needed, were better early than late. So my philosophy would be to take whatever path offers the best chance of identifying quickly which laws most need helpful explanation and provision then without delay of a few illustrative examples. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 16 15:30:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:30:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000101c83fda$b4cfd940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c83fda$b4cfd940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47653680.40305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> I agree with your case, and I don't think it is a counter-example to >> my list, which starts with "unless there exists a reason to play >> otherwise ...". >> >> It is of course up to director to decidse whether the player in >> question is a sub-novice or not! > > As long as the suggested list is only an attempt to establish all > alternatives for what shall be considered "normal play" and even starts with > the word "unless..." I do not see how the list can be to any use for the > Director in claim situations. > > He is still left with his own judgement on whether a particular line of play > leading to the claim being defeated is "irrational" or "normal". > > As far as I know we already have universal agreements that when cashing a > suit then that suit is to be played from the top, and when all cards are > assumed high then the different suits can be played in any order (with no > exception for the trump suit). > > Law 70C specifically prevents a claimer from pulling a possibly forgotten > trump and leaves it to the Director to rule if there is any "normal" line of > play that can give opponents trick(s) for such trump(s). > > So what does the suggested list give us that we don't already have? > The things that you say we already have, only we haven't. For example, you and I might know suits are to be cashed top-down, but where is that stated? Another example, you state that there is no exceptionf for the trump suit, yet the EBL AC specifically made that exception, in something which I would like to regard as a precedent. We really need to get our heads pointing in the same direction on that one, Sven! And then again, you and I have all that experience, but what do the others have - is it not up to us to write the list of these things "we already have". Besides, in the New Laws, the WBFLC provide for NBO's to make lists like this. It is my belief that we could do better, and the WBF should write the list. I'm giving an example. It seems to me that - with the exception of the trumps cashed last rule - there is little discussion about this list. So why not accept it? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 16 16:29:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47653680.40305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c83ff8$7be23240$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ............. > The things that you say we already have, only we haven't. > > For example, you and I might know suits are to be cashed top-down, but > where is that stated? > > Another example, you state that there is no exceptionf for the trump > suit, yet the EBL AC specifically made that exception, in something > which I would like to regard as a precedent. We really need to get our > heads pointing in the same direction on that one, Sven! > > And then again, you and I have all that experience, but what do the > others have - is it not up to us to write the list of these things "we > already have". > > Besides, in the New Laws, the WBFLC provide for NBO's to make lists > like this. It is my belief that we could do better, and the WBF should > write the list. I'm giving an example. > > It seems to me that - with the exception of the trumps cashed last > rule - there is little discussion about this list. So why not accept it? "...only we haven't "? Frankly I believe I have - from understanding Law 70? OK then, by all means make the list, but make it such that it guides the TD and AC directly on how to adjudicate a contested claim. That is what I thought you intended in your original post to which I only had the comments just on when trumps are played or not played. I believe I know the EBL AC decision you have in mind, a decision I consider a disaster which I have no intention of observing during my own work as TD (or AC) unless specifically so instructed by my NBO. (So far there has been a unanimous astonishment over that ruling whenever I have polled directors here in Norway.) Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:08:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:08:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47650286.4050904@skynet.be> References: <47647891.4030500@aol.com> <47650286.4050904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712161008u570d47eci6616c2d2b260bec0@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 16, 2007 5:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > And that is not the problem I was trying to tackle. I leave it to the > director to rule if the player knew if, and how many, trumps are > outstanding. If he rules that the player knew, then these rules tell > him that not playing trumps is not a normal line. Maybe that is too > easy, and I should not write rules for easy things, but the other > things are not easy. Top-down cashing is not, for instance. > Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does anyone dispute this principle? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 16 19:09:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:09:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000b01c83ff8$7be23240$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000b01c83ff8$7be23240$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <476569D4.1050700@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: > ............. >> The things that you say we already have, only we haven't. >> >> For example, you and I might know suits are to be cashed top-down, but >> where is that stated? >> >> Another example, you state that there is no exceptionf for the trump >> suit, yet the EBL AC specifically made that exception, in something >> which I would like to regard as a precedent. We really need to get our >> heads pointing in the same direction on that one, Sven! >> >> And then again, you and I have all that experience, but what do the >> others have - is it not up to us to write the list of these things "we >> already have". >> >> Besides, in the New Laws, the WBFLC provide for NBO's to make lists >> like this. It is my belief that we could do better, and the WBF should >> write the list. I'm giving an example. >> >> It seems to me that - with the exception of the trumps cashed last >> rule - there is little discussion about this list. So why not accept it? > > "...only we haven't "? > > Frankly I believe I have - from understanding Law 70? > But we understand L70 in different ways! So we need guidance from the WBF - or anyone else. > OK then, by all means make the list, but make it such that it guides the TD > and AC directly on how to adjudicate a contested claim. That is what I > thought you intended in your original post to which I only had the comments > just on when trumps are played or not played. > > I believe I know the EBL AC decision you have in mind, a decision I consider > a disaster which I have no intention of observing during my own work as TD > (or AC) unless specifically so instructed by my NBO. (So far there has been > a unanimous astonishment over that ruling whenever I have polled directors > here in Norway.) > Of course Norway knows that decision! But the astonishment you mention is no less strong in Belgium, but in the reverse way. I have no problem with Norway making a unilateral decision to rule this one differently than the rest of the EBL, but what we have now is chaos, with only that one country having decided (presumably) and the others having their guidance from whom? The Belgian NBO has issued no instructions. What is a Belgian TD to do? The Norwegian NBO has issued no instructions - isn't a Norwegian TD not bound by the same (nonexistant) rules? You say you don't accept the EBLAC decision as precedent. This could mean: a) you're just being stubborn, and the precedent should count for all TD's in Europe; or b) the EBL AC decisions do not count as precedent. I was under the impression that a) was the real thing, but I'm not going to call you stubborn. So the EBL needs to do something more. Which is what I intended my list for - to force them to do this. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Dec 16 19:21:10 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:21:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c83fe0$5f253fc0$e3ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > Grattan: > > My understanding of the purpose of an appendix is that > it was to illustrate the law, not to interpret it. > > ton: > Now I understand better, we agreed to paint some pictures? > Still a loss of course. > > ton > +=+ 'illustrate' - "to clarify or explain by use of examples".+=+ What I meant to say of course is how you think to illustrate without interpretation? Or: what is the practical difference between those two? You remember that we were interpreting with examples? ton From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 16 22:11:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:11:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476569D4.1050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ...................... > Of course Norway knows that decision! The decision as I know it can be illustrated with the following example which is what I have used for my poll: Declarer holds Spade (trump) ten and the two red aces. He claims, believing that all his cards are high. However, one defender holds Spade Jack and Ace-King in Clubs. The question I have passed to several Directors is just this: How many tricks should be awarded to declarer? I haven't met a single player in Norway who (without knowledge of the original case) gives declarer any trick at all. As a matter of fact I do not know whether the Norwegian players involved were on the declaring or the defending side in the actual case; that is completely irrelevant for my own ruling which is: "When claimer believes that all his cards are high and has not specified any particular sequence in which he intended to play them he shall be assumed to playing them in the sequence most beneficial to opponents except that he shall not be forced to play any suit bottom up. In this case where the claimer thinks he hold the last trump we do not consider it "irrational" for him to cash that trump first just to be on the safe side "in case he could have forgotten a smaller outstanding trump". Notice that if the outstanding trump had been smaller than the ten in Declarer's hand we would forbid him to draw that last trump first, now we rule that he does. I would like to know what the unanimous (?) opinion is in Belgium and the rationality behind that opinion? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 16 23:49:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:49:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ...................... >> Of course Norway knows that decision! > > The decision as I know it can be illustrated with the following example > which is what I have used for my poll: > > Declarer holds Spade (trump) ten and the two red aces. He claims, believing > that all his cards are high. > > However, one defender holds Spade Jack and Ace-King in Clubs. > > The question I have passed to several Directors is just this: How many > tricks should be awarded to declarer? > > I haven't met a single player in Norway who (without knowledge of the > original case) gives declarer any trick at all. > > As a matter of fact I do not know whether the Norwegian players involved > were on the declaring or the defending side in the actual case; that is > completely irrelevant for my own ruling which is: > > "When claimer believes that all his cards are high and has not specified any > particular sequence in which he intended to play them he shall be assumed to > playing them in the sequence most beneficial to opponents except that he > shall not be forced to play any suit bottom up. > > In this case where the claimer thinks he hold the last trump we do not > consider it "irrational" for him to cash that trump first just to be on the > safe side "in case he could have forgotten a smaller outstanding trump". > > Notice that if the outstanding trump had been smaller than the ten in > Declarer's hand we would forbid him to draw that last trump first, now we > rule that he does. > > I would like to know what the unanimous (?) opinion is in Belgium and the > rationality behind that opinion? > I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red aces". But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 17 00:19:43 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:19:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > I'd have awarded the remaining four tricks to E-W. > The table action after the claim is irrelevant. E claimed > two club tricks and gets them. It would not be "normal" > (i.e. it would be "irrational", per the 1997 footnote) for > W to throw the HA to keep more than one diamond, > and he will thus take the last two tricks perforce. > > It would be a different story had E claimed three tricks > holding -/ x/-/KQ10, as it would probably not be "irrational" > for W to pitch the HA from -/A/10/- at trick 12. > +=+ Eric, are you saying that the second part of (1997) Law 68B does not apply? (According to Koen Grauwels West immediately protested.) WBFLC minute 10 of 28 October 2001: "............ if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Dec 17 00:51:49 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:51:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I play weak 2's as 5+ suit. Even when told its 6 I generally take it with a pinch of salt. "Tartan" is normally 5 major/4+ minor. A few problems here. (1) cant quite understand how North isnt raising to the roof in hearts when he knows the opps have 10+ spades and slam likely (the huge majority of pairs will not open a weak 2 with 4 in the other major for fear of missing a cold game in the other major) (2) The response to the question "how do you play the weak 2 opener" is imo woefully short. "Weak" doent really cut it. 5-10 may have a 5 card suit (or whatever their agreement is) wouldnt have killed south. (3) If the suit lenght was pertinent to the play, west could have asked for further clarification at any time. (4) In Ireland you cant psych an opening conventional bid. So if 2H's is a "classic" weak bid 6 card no 4 cards in the other major - there is a problem. Similarly if 2H is tartan 5M/4m. If the 2H bid is legal (but a psych) - result stands. If not legal, I'll pass the buck to wiser heads to tell us what one does in this case but probably some favourable adjustment to e/w. If 2H was played as "tartan" (presumably 5 hearts and ANY other 4+ suit) then there was MI. Would the correct information have changed the auction I wonder ? If east jumps to 5D's the auction may go the same. It wouldnt take much to convince me that the bidding would have gone differently and i'd adjust the score - to maybe 3NT+1 or 4S+1. Karel On Dec 14, 2007 5:45 PM, Martin Oyston wrote: > Can you please offer a quick ruling on this for me > > The Deal: Bd 7, Dlr S, Both Vul > N S - > H JT94 > D K965 > C QT753 > W E > S AJT52 S KQ7 > H A H 652 > D 4 D AQT873 > C AKJ982 C 6 > > South > S 98643 > H KQ873 > D J2 > C 4 > > The Bidding: > S W N E > 2H* X P 5D > P 6C X P > P 6S P P > X all Pass > > * No alert > After the auction West asks "How do you play 2H opener, and is told "Weak" > West plays for 6-card Heart in South Result -2 > West claims damage, having other options such as Diamond finesse in the play > > Also that the bidding would have been very different if the 2H bid had been > alerted as weak tartan (which is what their agreement is) rather than weak > single-suiter. > > How do you rule please? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 01:07:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:07:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712161008u570d47eci6616c2d2b260bec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does >anyone dispute this principle? Richard Hills: The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle. EBU White Book, clause 70.5: A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. Richard Hills: I myself have often "successfully" executed a squeeze, only to fail to realise that the squeeze card - an indeterminate pip - was high. So, thinking it did not matter, I then played a lower losing pip instead. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 01:49:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:49:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Martin Oyston: >How do you rule please? ..... >weak tartan (which is what their agreement is) Richard Hills: If Martin has correctly stated the facts, it seems that North has forgotten their partnership agreement, so hence has given MI to East-West. (If, on the other hand, South merely misbid the weak tartan - with a natural weak 2H being the North-South agreement - then zero infraction and zero chance of an adjusted score.) Given that South's unalerted 2H caused both West and East to take optimistic action on the assumption that South had single-suited hearts, and given that a Tartan Two by South may have caused East in particular to be more conservative, as TD I would rule that East-West were damaged by MI in the auction. Given that an alerted and explained 2H could have led to myriad different results from the auction, as TD I would apply 2007 Law 12C1(d): If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. Richard Hills: So East-West get an artificial adjusted score of 60%, and North-South get an artificial adjusted score of 40% if I was TD. If North habitually fails to alert and explain partnership agreements then the 2007 Law 40C3(b) may apply if I was TD. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 17 01:55:35 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:55:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > Jerry Fusselman: > > >Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does > >anyone dispute this principle? > > Richard Hills: > > The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle. > > EBU White Book, clause 70.5: > > A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally > assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is > some solidity. However, each individual case should be > considered. > Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 > opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be > normal to give him three tricks since it might be > considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with > 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than > irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. > "Might be considered careless rather than irrational" are classic waffle words when used to discuss what is supposed to be a specific example. If neither the EBU nor anyone else cannot come up with even one cold, hard case where it is fine for the director to make declarer lose a trick he could only lose by failing to cash the highest card in the suit first, then it seems clear to me far wiser to make a simple decision to uphold the principle that for contested claims, director always assumes cashing from the top down. Such a weak statement as the EBU's makes me more confident that my view was right. There are still issues remaining, but for Pete's sake, have some principles with teeth in them. "Each individual case should be considered" is a necessary evil in some situations, not a wise principle to cover everything. Yes some players do crazy things sometimes. I have a seen a declarer finesse towards AQ and play the queen after the king pops out. She was planning to finesse. Nevertheless, when a statement includes taking a finesse, no director should assume that declarer might play the queen under the king. In settling disputed claims, have some principles so that two directors tend to get the same result. The fact that occasionally a player does something really stupid or needlessly flashy is irrelevant. Top-down is one excellent principle (sorry EBU), and correct execution of an in-the-statement finesse is another. > Richard Hills: > > I myself have often "successfully" executed a squeeze, only > to fail to realise that the squeeze card - an indeterminate > pip - was high. So, thinking it did not matter, I then > played a lower losing pip instead. > Your case was needlessly flashy play. It matters not to my point. No one has listed all of the *possible* mistakes in play. Big deal. Make some simple rules on claims and follow them. Use discretion only when necessary, and then only when the advantages of discretion outweigh the costs. Here, the costs of letting directors sometimes require bottom-up attempted cashing is much larger than any benefit from that discretion. It is also possible that now that "class of player" is gone from the laws, the EBU might reconsider their old recommendation of director discretion for the assumed order of attempting to cash cards in a suit. I hope so. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Dec 17 01:58:12 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:58:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4765C9A4.2040208@ntlworld.com> [A] Why doesn't Herman receive 100% support for his proposal that TNLB define what should be considered "normal" when a player claims. As usual, this could just be a default that sponsoring organisations could over-ride. It's a pity that the WBFLC obstinately refuses to grasp such nettles. Other inferior options are ... [B] Each director judges each case on its merits. Inconsistent rulings are then inevitable. [C] Instead the WBFLC can devolve the responsibility of defining norms. But that is a completely unnecessary burden on other legislative bodies. And results in pointless and unnecessary National variation. But better options exist, for example [D] Sven's claim protocol. [E] On-line claim protocol. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 02:04:46 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:04:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712161704n22bec9eao14749f7def3eba05@mail.gmail.com> Also, does the EBU really want lots of defenders to call the director when the claimant says "Cashing my spades" without the words "from the top down" in the hope that this time, the director will judge that the claimant might have tried to cash the lower cards first? Law makers and interpreters should consider what incentives they create. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 03:24:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:24:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >"Each individual case should be considered" is a >necessary evil in some situations, not a wise >principle to cover everything. ..... >have some principles so that two directors tend >to get the same result. Richard Hills: It seems to me that this Procrustean Philosophy is contrary to the 2007 Lawbook's Philosophy, as described in Law 70A: "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer..." It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 17 04:37:39 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:37:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > Jerry Fusselman: > > >"Each individual case should be considered" is a > >necessary evil in some situations, not a wise > >principle to cover everything. > ..... > >have some principles so that two directors tend > >to get the same result. > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that this Procrustean Philosophy It is nonsense to call what I said Procrustean. You could equally well call any bridge law Procrustean if you wanted to, because it is a law and must be followed. How about starting your post with some analysis instead of name calling? > is contrary to the 2007 Lawbook's Philosophy, as > described in Law 70A: > > "...the Director adjudicates the result of the > board as equitably as possible to both sides, but > any doubtful point as to a claim shall be > resolved against the claimer..." You really misunderstood me well here. The "so that two directors tend to get the same result" quote you gave at the top refers to situations where the facts are the same. What else could the quote mean? Any other interpretation is absurd. > > It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will > perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable > to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so. > Continuing to misunderstand. I did not say that when the facts were different the ruling should be the same. The are generally other factors, such as the language used by the claimant, to distinguish these two cases. On the other hand, suppose there is no difference between the two cases other than the director's beliefs in their class of play. I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part of the text of the laws for contested claims. We are talking about the new laws, right? Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 04:52:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:52:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c84060$39917050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ...................... > I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. > > If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades > are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red aces". I am fully aware of leading questions so I make it clear that "the claimer holds the only remaining trump, the ten of spades, together with the two red aces and claims, only to discover that a defender holds the Jack of spades and Ace-King of Clubs". > But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so > stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you > not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? I am so stubborn that I consider my view fully corroborated by the following part of Law 70: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." When all cards in a hand are (believed) high neither of the possible sequences in which they can be played is "irrational". It is as normal to play the last trump first to guard against a possibly forgotten small trump as it is to play the last trump last to guard against a possibly forgotten high trump. When there is an outstanding trump I rule that the claimer will select the less successful of the two available lines of play: Trump first or trump last. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 17 05:53:20 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:53:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: Message-ID: <044501c84068$bf8af2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > No, I think you know someone must have psyched, and you have guessed is > your > partner when you fail to double. Not permitted, as I understand the laws. > I have never been comfortable with this. It seems that if it is 100% obvious that someone has psyched, you should be allowed to guess that it was your partner. If it is not 100% obvious, then I think you must assume that everyone has a hand that would barely justify their bidding. In response to an earlier post of yours, Paul, the recommendation in the Orange Book is to score a red psyche as 60/30. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 17 06:03:47 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:03:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@stefanie> RH: >> It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will >> perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable >> to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so. >> JF: > I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part of the text of > the laws for contested claims. We are talking about the new laws, > right? > Yes, I had thought that the reason for removing the "class of player" reference was precisely so that Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim do not receive different rulings on a statement-less claim. If a player is capable of executing a double squeeze, is he not also capable of mentioning it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 06:15:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:15:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part >of the text of the laws for contested claims. We are >talking about the new laws, right? 2007 footnote to Laws 70 and 71: * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 17 06:56:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:56:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712162156w158fbc7bw61a302bda50eb7e5@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > Jerry Fusselman: > > [snip] > > >I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part > >of the text of the laws for contested claims. We are > >talking about the new laws, right? > > 2007 footnote to Laws 70 and 71: > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes > play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved. > I was wrong the language in the new law here, but is "the class of player involved" missing from some other place that it used to be? I thought early in the BLML discussions of the new laws, there was some discussion of less language about the class of player. No? Is the EBU's position based on "the class of player involved?" I guess I am asking for speculation in this question, for they may not have said one way or another. That class-of-player stuff is ugly to me. What are directors told in directing school that teaches them how to divine the class of player? Do they go by who they know? Who they like? Frequent visitors to the club? Those who speak the local language well? National master points? How loud and intimidating they sound when conversing with the director? Some of the above are fine to use? Seriously, I want to know. So the EBU recommends telling a claimant something to the effect that because you did not specifically mention top-down you lose some easy tricks in your single-suit claim: That is, we tell them (Oh, nicely, of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player. Do I have it essentially right? Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 08:04:58 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:04:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000001c84060$39917050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <000001c84060$39917050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On 17/12/2007, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sven Pran wrote: > ...................... > > I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. > > > > If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades > > are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red aces". > > I am fully aware of leading questions so I make it clear that "the claimer > holds the only remaining trump, the ten of spades, together with the two red > aces and claims, only to discover that a defender holds the Jack of spades > and Ace-King of Clubs". > > > But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so > > stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you > > not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? > > > I am so stubborn that I consider my view fully corroborated by the following > part of Law 70: > > "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not > embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative > normal line of play that would be less successful." > > When all cards in a hand are (believed) high neither of the possible > sequences in which they can be played is "irrational". It is as normal to > play the last trump first to guard against a possibly forgotten small trump > as it is to play the last trump last to guard against a possibly forgotten > high trump. > > When there is an outstanding trump I rule that the claimer will select the > less successful of the two available lines of play: Trump first or trump > last. > I strongly agree with Sven here. I consider any other ruling totally ridiculous (or should I say irrational?). If one should rule otherwise one need to change the wording of the actual law - the word "irrational" have a specific meaning and hasn't been otherwise defined in bridge law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 17 09:02:11 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:02:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <474D37BF14A96690@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000c01c84083$3d7d1480$c4d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Memo to Regulating Authorities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Grattan: >> >> My understanding of the purpose of an appendix is that >> it was to illustrate the law, not to interpret it. >> >> ton: >> Now I understand better, we agreed to paint some pictures? >> Still a loss of course. >> >> ton >> > +=+ 'illustrate' - "to clarify or explain by use of examples".+=+ > > > > What I meant to say of course is how you think to illustrate without > interpretation? > Or: what is the practical difference between those two? You > remember that we were interpreting with examples? > > ton > +=+ That is fair comment. The problem is that any element of interpretation has no authority unless backed by a corporate decision of either the WBF Laws Committee or of a Zonal authority. Our DSC colleagues (some) are saying that the 2007 laws are plain and do not call for interpretation. I am sceptical of that in the sense that it would be surprising if Directors everywhere agreed unanimously in every detail and perhaps here and there a 'detail' might prove to be of considerable significance. We seem to have lost the momentum of the DSC towards any appendix. Whether they will pick up and support one or two isolated illustrations of what we think are rather obscure laws we can find out; if not you, Max, Maurizio, Antonio and I (with Herman a non-voting Secretary) constitute the EBL Laws Committee and there is perhaps a better chance of our agreeing useful expositions of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 17 09:09:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:09:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <000a01c83f24$a0ca6390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c83f24$a0ca6390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47662EAD.9070502@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Paul > The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . > I was sitting West. > So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : > > > Dealer North, EW vulnerable. > > .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S > .......53...................1C...1NT..2C > .......T872............3NT..p....p....p > .......5 > 4.............A76 > 764...........AKT92 > AK93..........Q5 > AJ973.........Q42 > .......Q32 > .......QJ8 > .......J64 > .......KT86 > > North has psyched before. > Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. > I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by > South. > Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if > so, how ? > > Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He > has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club > against 3NT seems quite normal to me? > > Alain : neither do I. 2C is normal. The club lead shows beyond doubt that South believed his partner, perhaps thinking that everybody was a bit light (partner with long clubs, RHO with long diamonds and CA). You might question the non-double of 3NT, but why on Earth should I double when I "know" 3NT is going down and I ain't got any defense against 4D ? (singleton club in dummy is quote probable if nobody's joking) Okay, if North psyched or semi-psyched, pass works best. BTA, if East did, it's best too. Green. Best regards. Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 17 09:28:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:28:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4766332D.2000907@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 15/12/2007 16:51:27 GMT Standard Time, wrgptfan at gmail.com > writes: > > >> I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x >> J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx >> Kxx AQ. >> > > [paul lamford] And the other things wrong with your suggested hand: > a) the 4-4-3-2 hand would double, not bid 1NT > b) the hand opposite would not bid 3NT, why would he think that even if > partner had the DK there would be nine tricks? > c) the hand is designed as a self-serving defence to explain your failure to > double 3NT > d) the 10-count is not an opening bid. > > No, I think you know someone must have psyched, and you have guessed is your > partner when you fail to double. Not permitted, as I understand the laws. > > > First, if someone has psyched, it's partner, because of the vulnerability, a factor you're allowed to know. Scond, it isn't at all self-supporting to try and construct a hand where everybody more or less has his bid : : Qxx QJx Jxx Kxxx Axx KJxx Kx xxxx AQxxxx Kxxx Jxx x xxx Axx x AQxxxx In which case, doubling would be ridiculous. Note that on this construction, if West pulls back to 4D on the sound of your double, you're 430 total points worse than without doubling. Thos who tell me South's hand isn't an opening bid *are* using self-supporting arguments. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 10:32:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:32:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <000001c84060$39917050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47664227.8030304@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 17/12/2007, Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran wrote: >> ...................... >>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. >>> >>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red aces". >> I am fully aware of leading questions so I make it clear that "the claimer >> holds the only remaining trump, the ten of spades, together with the two red >> aces and claims, only to discover that a defender holds the Jack of spades >> and Ace-King of Clubs". >> >>> But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so >>> stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you >>> not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? >> >> I am so stubborn that I consider my view fully corroborated by the following >> part of Law 70: >> >> "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not >> embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative >> normal line of play that would be less successful." >> >> When all cards in a hand are (believed) high neither of the possible >> sequences in which they can be played is "irrational". It is as normal to >> play the last trump first to guard against a possibly forgotten small trump >> as it is to play the last trump last to guard against a possibly forgotten >> high trump. >> >> When there is an outstanding trump I rule that the claimer will select the >> less successful of the two available lines of play: Trump first or trump >> last. >> > I strongly agree with Sven here. > I consider any other ruling totally ridiculous (or should I say irrational?). > If one should rule otherwise one need to change the wording of the > actual law - the word "irrational" have a specific meaning and hasn't > been otherwise defined in bridge law. > Well, according to at least five players with lots of experience in laws, the word "normal" has a specific bridge meaning, which does not include the cashing of trumps before side suits. This is an opinion which is widely held (if not in Norway) and for that reason alone, there should be a consensus. There is no need for this ruling to be different in Norway or in Sweden - imagine the poor Sami director who needs to consult his GPS in order to know where his tent is pitched today, and what definition of normal to use! :) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 11:54:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:54:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47664227.8030304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c8409b$38249810$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Well, according to at least five players with lots of experience in > laws, the word "normal" has a specific bridge meaning, which does not > include the cashing of trumps before side suits. > > This is an opinion which is widely held (if not in Norway) and for > that reason alone, there should be a consensus. There is no need for > this ruling to be different in Norway or in Sweden - imagine the poor > Sami director who needs to consult his GPS in order to know where his > tent is pitched today, and what definition of normal to use! :) So I assume that to be consistent you will also state that holding the Ace of Spades (trump) together with the two red aces it is "irrational" to play the Ace of Spades first in the same situation? If not I must request you to state precisely why playing the (believed high) ten first is irrational but not playing the (known high) Ace first, and at what rank of the trump irrationality enters the picture? (King, Queen, Jack or ten, and why just on the rank that you select) Finally I strongly suspect that your reference to a "majority of opinions" (outside Norway) is flawed. As Harald said: It sounds ridiculous (if not irrational)! I shall however concede, although with great dismay, if a fair poll proves your assessment. (Where or when did Sweden and Sami enter this question?) Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 12:27:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:27:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47664227.8030304@skynet.be> References: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <000001c84060$39917050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47664227.8030304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47665D3D.20402@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> On 17/12/2007, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> Sven Pran wrote: >>> ...................... >>>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. >>>> >>>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >>>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red aces". >>> I am fully aware of leading questions so I make it clear that "the claimer >>> holds the only remaining trump, the ten of spades, together with the two red >>> aces and claims, only to discover that a defender holds the Jack of spades >>> and Ace-King of Clubs". >>> >>>> But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so >>>> stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you >>>> not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? >>> I am so stubborn that I consider my view fully corroborated by the following >>> part of Law 70: >>> >>> "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not >>> embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative >>> normal line of play that would be less successful." >>> >>> When all cards in a hand are (believed) high neither of the possible >>> sequences in which they can be played is "irrational". It is as normal to >>> play the last trump first to guard against a possibly forgotten small trump >>> as it is to play the last trump last to guard against a possibly forgotten >>> high trump. >>> >>> When there is an outstanding trump I rule that the claimer will select the >>> less successful of the two available lines of play: Trump first or trump >>> last. >>> >> I strongly agree with Sven here. >> I consider any other ruling totally ridiculous (or should I say irrational?). >> If one should rule otherwise one need to change the wording of the >> actual law - the word "irrational" have a specific meaning and hasn't >> been otherwise defined in bridge law. >> > > Well, according to at least five players with lots of experience in > laws, the word "normal" has a specific bridge meaning, which does not > include the cashing of trumps before side suits. > > This is an opinion which is widely held (if not in Norway) and for > that reason alone, there should be a consensus. Permit me to clarify, it was not clear: I do not pretend to know which consensus this should be - both views are widely held, and one or other camp ought to give way in favour of a common ruling - but we won't get there by simply repeating "my view is widely held in such and such place". Maybe the EBL AC is a higher authority than the joint TD's of Norway - or maybe not. > There is no need for > this ruling to be different in Norway or in Sweden - imagine the poor > Sami director who needs to consult his GPS in order to know where his > tent is pitched today, and what definition of normal to use! :) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 18 07:49:02 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:49:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c8409b$38249810$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <47664227.8030304@skynet.be> <000201c8409b$38249810$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071217224700.01c4bec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > >(Where or when did Sweden and Sami enter this question?) > >Sven And is Belgium still a country? Last I heard it was passed in on ebay, Flemish/Walloon are regarded as mixed marriages, and Brussels was going to be a separate city state. News travels slowly to Oz, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 13:45:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:45:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c8409b$38249810$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c8409b$38249810$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47666F5E.9060605@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> Well, according to at least five players with lots of experience in >> laws, the word "normal" has a specific bridge meaning, which does not >> include the cashing of trumps before side suits. >> >> This is an opinion which is widely held (if not in Norway) and for >> that reason alone, there should be a consensus. There is no need for >> this ruling to be different in Norway or in Sweden - imagine the poor >> Sami director who needs to consult his GPS in order to know where his >> tent is pitched today, and what definition of normal to use! :) > > So I assume that to be consistent you will also state that holding the Ace > of Spades (trump) together with the two red aces it is "irrational" to play > the Ace of Spades first in the same situation? > Yes, I believe so. The difference between the suits is that for the side suits, declerer believes his cards are "high", whereas for the trump suit, they are "last". Not exactly the same thing, and it does not occur to the ordinary low-level player that trumps are a suit that can be "cashed". In any case, the "safe" option is to keep trumps for getting back in later. Of course the safe option is not one that should be considered when ruling on a player who believes all tricks are his - but it's more automatic this way. Anyway, it's easy as a TD to say "if you were not certain all trumps had gone, you could have cashed an extra one, so I'm ruling against you". Whereas it's harder to counter the argument "I would never cash my trumps, just in case I miscounted some other suit" with "then why did you not say "I'm not cashing trumps first"?" It simply does not seem normal for me to play the 3 and 2 of trumps (which I know to be last) before the Ace of a side suit (which I know to be high). Nothing about irrational or anything, just not "normal". > If not I must request you to state precisely why playing the (believed high) > ten first is irrational but not playing the (known high) Ace first, and at > what rank of the trump irrationality enters the picture? (King, Queen, Jack > or ten, and why just on the rank that you select) > As I said, I don't believe the ace is normal, nor the 2. > Finally I strongly suspect that your reference to a "majority of opinions" > (outside Norway) is flawed. As Harald said: It sounds ridiculous (if not > irrational)! I shall however concede, although with great dismay, if a fair > poll proves your assessment. > I doubt if polls would be able to settle this, but I'm willing to make a poll of TD's. Let me get back to you (in private) on the wording of such a poll. > (Where or when did Sweden and Sami enter this question?) > Nowhere - I was looking for a neighbour of Norway. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 17 13:55:16 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:55:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712161704n22bec9eao14749f7def3eba05@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712161704n22bec9eao14749f7def3eba05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c840ac$12d17a90$38746fb0$@com> [JF] Also, does the EBU really want lots of defenders to call the director when the claimant says "Cashing my spades" without the words "from the top down" in the hope that this time, the director will judge that the claimant might have tried to cash the lower cards first? [DALB] Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: None None None 432 8 64 None None None None AK Q 75 3 None None South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? David Burn London, England From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Dec 17 14:41:37 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:41:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@mail.gmail.com> <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47667C91.20308@ntlworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] Yes, I had thought that the reason for removing the "class of player" reference was precisely so that Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim do not receive different rulings on a statement-less claim. If a player is capable of executing a double squeeze, is he not also capable of mentioning it? [nige1] Precisely correct, IMO. Manifestly, this new law is fairer. When an expert makes a faulty claim it is usually because he has completely lost the place. He is functioning at Guggenheim level or worse. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 14:44:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:44:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47666F5E.9060605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c840b2$ec036160$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >> Well, according to at least five players with lots of experience in > >> laws, the word "normal" has a specific bridge meaning, which does not > >> include the cashing of trumps before side suits. > >> > >> This is an opinion which is widely held (if not in Norway) and for > >> that reason alone, there should be a consensus. There is no need for > >> this ruling to be different in Norway or in Sweden - imagine the poor > >> Sami director who needs to consult his GPS in order to know where his > >> tent is pitched today, and what definition of normal to use! :) > > > > So I assume that to be consistent you will also state that holding the > > Ace of Spades (trump) together with the two red aces it is "irrational" > > to play the Ace of Spades first in the same situation? > > > > Yes, I believe so. > The difference between the suits is that for the side suits, declerer > believes his cards are "high", whereas for the trump suit, they are > "last". Not exactly the same thing, and it does not occur to the > ordinary low-level player that trumps are a suit that can be "cashed". > > In any case, the "safe" option is to keep trumps for getting back in > later. Of course the safe option is not one that should be considered > when ruling on a player who believes all tricks are his - but it's > more automatic this way. > > Anyway, it's easy as a TD to say "if you were not certain all trumps > had gone, you could have cashed an extra one, so I'm ruling against > you". Whereas it's harder to counter the argument "I would never cash > my trumps, just in case I miscounted some other suit" with "then why > did you not say "I'm not cashing trumps first"?" > > It simply does not seem normal for me to play the 3 and 2 of trumps > (which I know to be last) before the Ace of a side suit (which I know > to be high). Nothing about irrational or anything, just not "normal". I shall follow you half way on an argument that some of the lines of play we are discussing can be called "careless" (or "inferior"), but there is no way I can accept an argument that any of the lines of play available to a player who believes that all his cards are "high" is "irrational" (except in some cases playing a suite of noncontiguous cards bottom up). And as both "careless" and "inferior" are specifically included in the term "normal" as used in Law 70 (among other places) I shall not discard such plays when adjudicating incomplete claim statements. Maybe you should examine the distinction between "irrational" on one side and "inferior", "careless" and "normal" on the other side? ........... > > (Where or when did Sweden and Sami enter this question?) > > > > Nowhere - I was looking for a neighbour of Norway. We have Sami in all three countries, some of which are moving between the countries with the seasons. And they don't need GPS to know their position. They are "children of the nature". Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 15:00:24 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:00:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <000301c840ac$12d17a90$38746fb0$@com> Message-ID: <000201c840b5$2bdab1b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn > [JF] > > Also, does the EBU really want lots of defenders to call the director > when the claimant says "Cashing my spades" without the words "from the > top down" in the hope that this time, the director will judge that the > claimant might have tried to cash the lower cards first? > > [DALB] > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > None > None > None > 432 > 8 64 > None None > None None > AK Q > 75 > 3 > None > None > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? Trivial flawed claim: He can "cash" his trump first or he can try to establish a spade trick first. His success in establishing a spade trick depends on guessing which of the S8 and S6 is stiff. And as Law 70 specifically instructs the Director to disregard successful lines of play that depend on locating a particular card with opponents when such lines of play are not mentioned with the claim the Director has an easy job here: Declarer wins just one trick. Forget about "normally" playing a suit top down or bottom up. This is absolutely irrelevant here as long as Law 70 is not completely rewritten. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 15:49:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:49:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4762C676.3090406@skynet.be> References: <000001c83e6b$a5601760$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4762C676.3090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DE4DADA-C0FA-4D75-A6F8-FF788BD71217@starpower.net> On Dec 14, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are >>> normal. >>> >>> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal >>> lines >>> imply that: >>> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; >>> - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed >>> last; >>> - suits are cashed top-down; >>> - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to >>> take >>> the trick. >>> all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he >>> knows >>> from the deal. >>> >>> Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not >>> content. >>> Remember it is only a proposal. >> >> I assume this is to apply in contested claim situations, and then the >> proposal has my full support both in words and in contents except >> for one >> small change (affecting the first two lines in the proposal above): >> >> Suits (including the trump suit) are cashed in an order that >> proves most >> advantageous to opposing side. > >> > No Sven, that is not what is needed. > > The definition above defines "normal" lines. Plural. After that, the > TD will select the worst normal line for claimer. That is the one you > name above, but it is not needed to write that in the definition of > what is a normal line. > OK? Herman's rather confusing "definition above" defines not selectable "lines" at all -- "trumps are drawn first, until all have gone" and "suits are cashed top-down" aren't in any sense alternatives -- but rather components of lines, which, in combination, make up the lines. "Normal" lines are combinations of "normal" actions, and it is those independent "normal" actions (cashing top-down, following low to winners) that need to be distinguished from "abnormal" ones ("cashing" bottom-up, throwing winners under winners). Sven's comment makes perfect sense in that context, pointing out that Herman's first and second "lines" really are alternative "normal" plays, whereas his third and fourth (appropriately) imply "normality" in contrast to their "abnormal" unstated opposites. Of course, none of this discussion will be relevant to anything unless and until the WBF "interprets away" their ill-considered (and, from Grattan's remarks, apparently unintended) elimination of the exclusion of "irrational" plays from consideration as components of "normal" lines in TF2008LB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 17 15:51:59 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:51:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712162156w158fbc7bw61a302bda50eb7e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712162156w158fbc7bw61a302bda50eb7e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <579CC2B8-DB5D-4237-95AE-37AA30A5BADB@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Do I have it essentially right? I can't speak for the EBU, but IMO, no, you don't have it right. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 17 16:09:40 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:09:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c840b5$2bdab1b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c840b5$2bdab1b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <396AB7ED-9F6B-4668-8334-5DFA70B02210@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Trivial flawed claim: > > He can "cash" his trump first or he can try to establish a spade trick > first. His success in establishing a spade trick depends on > guessing which > of the S8 and S6 is stiff. You're missing the point. *Declarer thinks both his spades are good*. He's not going to guess which of the S8 and S6 is stiff. The point is, since he believes both his spades are good, it doesn't matter to him in which order he plays them. If we must rule that he plays top down, then the defense gets two tricks. If we may (and do) rule that he plays the 5 first (remember, *he* doesn't care which one he plays) then the defense gets one trick. It seems to me though that "doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimant" would lead to a ruling of two tricks to the defense even *if* we're otherwise allowed to rule that he plays the 5 first. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 16:31:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:31:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000101c840b2$ec036160$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c840b2$ec036160$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4766966B.7010403@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >> Anyway, it's easy as a TD to say "if you were not certain all trumps >> had gone, you could have cashed an extra one, so I'm ruling against >> you". Whereas it's harder to counter the argument "I would never cash >> my trumps, just in case I miscounted some other suit" with "then why >> did you not say "I'm not cashing trumps first"?" >> >> It simply does not seem normal for me to play the 3 and 2 of trumps >> (which I know to be last) before the Ace of a side suit (which I know >> to be high). Nothing about irrational or anything, just not "normal". > > I shall follow you half way on an argument that some of the lines of play we > are discussing can be called "careless" (or "inferior"), but there is no way > I can accept an argument that any of the lines of play available to a player > who believes that all his cards are "high" is "irrational" (except in some > cases playing a suite of noncontiguous cards bottom up). > > And as both "careless" and "inferior" are specifically included in the term > "normal" as used in Law 70 (among other places) I shall not discard such > plays when adjudicating incomplete claim statements. > > Maybe you should examine the distinction between "irrational" on one side > and "inferior", "careless" and "normal" on the other side? > I thought the word irrational had gone. I find that there is a feeling I have with "normal". Normal is something that ordinary people do - not what they don't do. Cashing down-up (when thinking all are gone) is just as rational as cashing them top-down, but "it just isn't done". There is nothing inferior or careless about cashing a suit down-up. So why do you agree with my third rule, but not with my fourth? Cashing top-down is extra safety, which is why it's always done that way, and why we include it in normal, but not down-up; Keeping trumps till last is also extra safety, and few people will cash trumps first. Which is why I call it normal. Face it, Sven, with ordinary discussions we shall not reach consensus. We need to have guidance. > ........... >>> (Where or when did Sweden and Sami enter this question?) >>> >> Nowhere - I was looking for a neighbour of Norway. > > We have Sami in all three countries, some of which are moving between the > countries with the seasons. And they don't need GPS to know their position. > They are "children of the nature". > Which would mean they wouldn't know which country they are in - my point exactly! The ruling should not differ between Norway and Sweden or Finland. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 16:37:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:37:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <000301c840ac$12d17a90$38746fb0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712161704n22bec9eao14749f7def3eba05@mail.gmail.com> <000301c840ac$12d17a90$38746fb0$@com> Message-ID: <476697C0.4000506@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > Also, does the EBU really want lots of defenders to call the director > when the claimant says "Cashing my spades" without the words "from the > top down" in the hope that this time, the director will judge that the > claimant might have tried to cash the lower cards first? > > [DALB] > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > None > None > None > 432 > 8 64 > None None > None None > AK Q > 75 > 3 > None > None > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > I give him one - the trump. But leave out the spade 4, and he would make 2 in my rules. Or exchange the spade 4 and 5, so that he also makes just the one (S7 played first) > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 17:10:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:10:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4763BE8B.7080508@skynet.be> References: <4763BE8B.7080508@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Martin Oyston wrote: >> >> Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines >> >> Here is my proposal for a set of rules defining which lines are >> normal. >> >> Unless there exists a definite reason to play otherwise, normal lines >> imply that: >> - trumps are drawn first, until all have gone; >> - suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are cashed >> last; >> - suits are cashed top-down; >> - tricks are won with the lowest possible card that is certain to >> take >> the trick. >> all this to be judged with reference to what claimer believes he >> knows >> from the deal. >> >> Comments welcome, although those should be about wording, not >> content. >> Remember it is only a proposal. > > [Martino] > Surely this too has it's pitfalls. If Declarer is unaware of > outstanding > trumps then he may try to cash long suits without drawing trumps. > Maybe just add "If outstanding trumps are mentioned, then trumps drawn > first" :) > > Martin, > this is a contentious point. I do not wish to take it up. Americans > routinely say "drawing trumps". Belgians never say it. That in itself > is not a proof of having forgotten them. This explains my recent disagreement with Herman over the relevance of L70C to his proposal. Americans routinely say "drawing trumps" because a player who claims with no mention of outstanding trumps at best takes on the burden of proactively demonstrating to an American TD that it would be "abnormal" for him not to draw them. Which is indeed, in most cases, the equivalent of treating them as having been "forgotten". It is entirely consistent for Belgians to both take a much looser attitude towards L70C and to routinely neglect to mention the outstanding trumps when claiming. But it wouldn't fly over here, where a typical statement upon facing a hand at trick one to claim them all in a trump contract is, "Drawing trumps and claiming." > The example of gampas illustrates that claims are possible, and > acceptible, without stating that trumps are drawn. If the TD is > satisfied that claimer knows trumps are not yet drawn (and that he > knows how many are left), then the TD should have a guidance about > what are the normal lines. > Therefore a rule which says that the only normal line is to draw > trumps first, is needed. > > It is still up to the TD to decided whether claimer knows about > outstanding trumps or not, but if he does, it is not normal for him > not to draw them. > > So if we write a rule, this has got to be it. If we accept the stricter "American" interpretation of L70C, that rule is L70C3 as written, unless the claimer can demonstrate the applicability of L70C2. We do, however, still need a rule to tell us how many rounds of trumps should be presumed to be drawn by a claimer who has stated that he will draw all the trumps; there does not seem to be any common practice in this regard. "Hard-liners" in effect require the claimer to have a valid claim; they presume he will draw as many rounds as there are outstanding trumps regardless of the actual lie. Others exclude as "abnormal" continuing to draw trumps after both sides have shown out (e.g. claimer may be given the benefit of an unstated variation which would succeed against 4-1 trumps but fail against 5-0 provided trumps are in fact 3-2, but not if they are 4-1). In either case, however, many (myself included) will rule that if the claimer has included in his statement the *number* of outstanding trumps (or otherwise demonstrated his awareness of that number), he is presumed to be counting, in which case it becomes "normal" to stop drawing trumps as soon as they're gone. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 17 17:22:38 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:22:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4766966B.7010403@skynet.be> References: <000101c840b2$ec036160$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4766966B.7010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4766A24E.4020901@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > I find that there is a feeling I have with "normal". Normal is > something that ordinary people do - not what they don't do. Cashing > down-up (when thinking all are gone) is just as rational as cashing > them top-down, but "it just isn't done". > > There is nothing inferior or careless about cashing a suit down-up. So > why do you agree with my third rule, but not with my fourth? > > Cashing top-down is *extra safety*, which is why it's always done that > way, and why we include it in normal, but not down-up; > Keeping trumps till last is also *extra safety*, and few people will > cash trumps first. Which is why I call it normal. > > BTA players with burned out minds don't care about extra safety more than they do about which cards are still in the game. Now we can ask ourselves whether such lines like playing suits up-down is a conscious move, a habit or a reflex ; if the latter, we should allow up-down. I'm unsure about that classificaiton. But if you insist on saying you do this for extra safety, I'll disallow such lines. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 17:52:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:52:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4766966B.7010403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c840cd$25e4bcc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > We have Sami in all three countries, some of which are moving between > the > > countries with the seasons. And they don't need GPS to know their > position. > > They are "children of the nature". > > > > Which would mean they wouldn't know which country they are in - my > point exactly! The ruling should not differ between Norway and Sweden > or Finland. You are jumping to conclusions Herman! Who has said they don't know which country they are in? They know perfectly well where they cross the boarders, only they don't care. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 17:56:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:56:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <9EB2A180-D876-47DD-97AE-8B522F285A2B@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ...................... >> Of course Norway knows that decision! > > The decision as I know it can be illustrated with the following > example > which is what I have used for my poll: > > Declarer holds Spade (trump) ten and the two red aces. He claims, > believing > that all his cards are high. > > However, one defender holds Spade Jack and Ace-King in Clubs. > > The question I have passed to several Directors is just this: How many > tricks should be awarded to declarer? > > I haven't met a single player in Norway who (without knowledge of the > original case) gives declarer any trick at all. > > As a matter of fact I do not know whether the Norwegian players > involved > were on the declaring or the defending side in the actual case; > that is > completely irrelevant for my own ruling which is: > > "When claimer believes that all his cards are high and has not > specified any > particular sequence in which he intended to play them he shall be > assumed to > playing them in the sequence most beneficial to opponents except > that he > shall not be forced to play any suit bottom up. > > In this case where the claimer thinks he hold the last trump we do not > consider it "irrational" for him to cash that trump first just to > be on the > safe side "in case he could have forgotten a smaller outstanding > trump". > > Notice that if the outstanding trump had been smaller than the ten in > Declarer's hand we would forbid him to draw that last trump first, > now we > rule that he does. Sven's suggested basis for ruling is not only correct, but accepted as standard practice throughout the ACBL. I am rather surprised to learn that it is anything other than universal. I'm not familiar with the decision being discussed, but, obviously, aberrant rulings do happen, and not every ruling ever made is suitable to be treated as precedential. For completeness, Sven's protocol needs a further clarification. It is abnormal to play presumptively cashing suits other than top down, whilst not abnormal to play them in the least favorable order. It is also, however, abnormal to fail to cash out such a suit completely. IOW, we do not consider lines in which declarer could do worse than otherwise by starting to cash one suit, then at just the right (i.e. wrong) time deciding to abandon it to start cashing some other. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 18:13:44 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:13:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <579CC2B8-DB5D-4237-95AE-37AA30A5BADB@rochester.rr.com> References: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712162156w158fbc7bw61a302bda50eb7e5@mail.gmail.com> <579CC2B8-DB5D-4237-95AE-37AA30A5BADB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712170913i443e04b8t17ee34881b880665@mail.gmail.com> Ed Reppert: > I can't speak for the EBU, but IMO, no, you don't have it right. Thanks, but did you misunderstood me? I wanted to know what the EBU recommends. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 17 18:25:44 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:25:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712170913i443e04b8t17ee34881b880665@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712162156w158fbc7bw61a302bda50eb7e5@mail.gmail.com> <579CC2B8-DB5D-4237-95AE-37AA30A5BADB@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0712170913i443e04b8t17ee34881b880665@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55BF9023-DAB9-4279-920D-7DF54B0B8685@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Thanks, but did you misunderstood me? I wanted to know what the EBU > recommends. Well, I would have to do some research to answer that (I'm not in the EBU). But what I was really speaking to was "we tell them (Oh, nicely, of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player." I can't believe that *any* NBO would be so foolish. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 18:48:38 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:48:38 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 21:31:31 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >We have a different understanding. >Psychs are legal. If you guess it's your partner who has psyched, and >it's truly a guess, there is nothing illegal about that. [paul lamford] Firstly, I totally agree that psyches are legal, and have psyched from time to time myself, often with spectacularly good results, and causing deep offence to opponents - even extending to resignations from my club committee and to threats to call an Extraordinary General Meeting. Hard to believe, but I do not jest. However, in England, the following applies: A partnership?s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (eg 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche. It is my understanding that if your action is one that would not be considered by your peers you have fielded the psyche and it is classified as red. After your partner has opened 1C on the hand in question, it is normal to double 3NT. You are guessing that partner has psyched because the opponents are vulnerable, and because your partner has psyched before. I regard this is an unauthorised understanding, though I am happy to be persuaded that I am wrong by weight of opinion here. That is what fora are for. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 19:04:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:04:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to get at. On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ...................... >>> Of course Norway knows that decision! >> >> The decision as I know it can be illustrated with the following >> example >> which is what I have used for my poll: >> >> Declarer holds Spade (trump) ten and the two red aces. He claims, >> believing >> that all his cards are high. >> >> However, one defender holds Spade Jack and Ace-King in Clubs. >> >> The question I have passed to several Directors is just this: How >> many >> tricks should be awarded to declarer? >> >> I haven't met a single player in Norway who (without knowledge of the >> original case) gives declarer any trick at all. >> >> As a matter of fact I do not know whether the Norwegian players >> involved >> were on the declaring or the defending side in the actual case; >> that is >> completely irrelevant for my own ruling which is: >> >> "When claimer believes that all his cards are high and has not >> specified any >> particular sequence in which he intended to play them he shall be >> assumed to >> playing them in the sequence most beneficial to opponents except >> that he >> shall not be forced to play any suit bottom up. >> >> In this case where the claimer thinks he hold the last trump we do >> not >> consider it "irrational" for him to cash that trump first just to >> be on the >> safe side "in case he could have forgotten a smaller outstanding >> trump". >> >> Notice that if the outstanding trump had been smaller than the ten in >> Declarer's hand we would forbid him to draw that last trump first, >> now we >> rule that he does. >> >> I would like to know what the unanimous (?) opinion is in Belgium >> and the >> rationality behind that opinion? > > I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. It does? How? > If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades > are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red > aces". It is? How? Does one of these indicate that "claimer believes that all his cards are high" and other not? Does one of them entitle him to a different presumptive line than the other? Is there supposed to be some presumptive difference in the proposed line of play based on some difference between "last trump" and "spade ten, and by the way spades are trumps"? Does one of them obviate the applicability of L70D-E and the other not? I just don't get it. > But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so > stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you > not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? The only "rule" we need, such as it is, is exactly what Sven has said: A claimer who believes that he can take the rest by running all of his suits but has not specified the sequence in which he will play them is presumed to play them in the least advantageous order. That is really nothing more than a paraphrase of L70D. There is no justification for abandoning this principle just because one of his "running" suits happens to be trumps. Any rule that would specify a presumptive order would imply that the "normal" action when you have forgotten that there is still a card outstanding in a suit you thought you held all the remaining cards of -- whether trumps or not -- depends on the rank of the card you forgot about, which is patently absurd! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 19:20:07 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:20:07 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 17/12/2007 08:28:43 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [alain] First, if someone has psyched, it's partner, because of the vulnerability, a factor you're allowed to know. [paul lamford] This is a commonly held view, but it is effectively an undisclosed partnership agreement. Partner will only psyche at favourable. Indeed that is common sense, and I would have no problem if the laws allowed one to conclude that partner must have psyched because he is at favourable vulnerability, before the auction makes it clear that he has. Presumably there is some case history on this issue. I recall appealing an original amber classification at an English congress 12 years ago after the favourable vulnerability opponent failed to double a 1NT overcall with a 11-count, and that was reclassified as red by the AC. The psycher did not speak to me for 10 years. [alain] Scond, it isn't at all self-supporting to try and construct a hand where everybody more or less has his bid : : Qxx QJx Jxx Kxxx Axx KJxx Kx xxxx AQxxxx Kxxx Jxx x xxx Axx x AQxxxx In which case, doubling would be ridiculous. [paul lamford] No more ridiculous than the 1NT overcall (without one of West's 14 cards, presumably a small diamond, not to mention the 14 clubs and 12 hearts in the hand), and no more ridiculous than East's failure to bid 3C over 2C. East's raise of 1NT to 3NT is particularly surreal after a club raise. [alain] Note that on this construction, if West pulls back to 4D on the sound of your double, you're 430 total points worse than without doubling. Thos who tell me South's hand isn't an opening bid *are* using self-supporting arguments. [paul lamford] And those who tell me that the auction might go as you described are not using self-supporting arguments, as they do not provide one iota of support. Best regards Alain From adam at irvine.com Mon Dec 17 19:35:02 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:35:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:09:17 +0100." <47662EAD.9070502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200712171829.KAA31174@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Paul > > The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . > > I was sitting West. > > So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : > > > > > > Dealer North, EW vulnerable. > > > > .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S > > .......53...................1C...1NT..2C > > .......T872............3NT..p....p....p > > .......5 > > 4.............A76 > > 764...........AKT92 > > AK93..........Q5 > > AJ973.........Q42 > > .......Q32 > > .......QJ8 > > .......J64 > > .......KT86 > > > > North has psyched before. > > Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. > > I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by > > South. > > Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if > > so, how ? > > > > Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He > > has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club > > against 3NT seems quite normal to me? > > > > > Alain : neither do I. 2C is normal. The club lead shows beyond doubt > that South believed his partner This is the clincher to me. I don't see how anyone can look at South's lead and think South fielded a psych. I think one of the biggest mistakes directors can make is to assume that they "know" what the correct action is during the auction, and that a departure from this is either a bridge error or indicates that something funny is going on. 2C appears to be rather conservative. I don't think I'd bid it. But it's hardly silly, and the double of 1NT itself is borderline. And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). So I don't see any basis for any suspicion here. -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 19:42:05 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:42:05 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:35:30 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number of cards in each suit, where the auction was from another world. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 19:43:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:43:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <4763BE8B.7080508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4766C357.6020803@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > If we accept the stricter "American" interpretation of L70C, permit me to rephrase that: when in America, where a player who does not mention trumps can be deemed to have forgotten them, > that > rule is L70C3 as written, unless the claimer can demonstrate the > applicability of L70C2. We do, however, still need a rule to tell us > how many rounds of trumps should be presumed to be drawn by a claimer > who has stated that he will draw all the trumps; there does not seem > to be any common practice in this regard. "Hard-liners" in effect > require the claimer to have a valid claim; they presume he will draw > as many rounds as there are outstanding trumps regardless of the > actual lie. Others exclude as "abnormal" continuing to draw trumps > after both sides have shown out (e.g. claimer may be given the > benefit of an unstated variation which would succeed against 4-1 > trumps but fail against 5-0 provided trumps are in fact 3-2, but not > if they are 4-1). In either case, however, many (myself included) > will rule that if the claimer has included in his statement the > *number* of outstanding trumps (or otherwise demonstrated his > awareness of that number), he is presumed to be counting, in which > case it becomes "normal" to stop drawing trumps as soon as they're gone. > So not only do you wish a claimer at trick one to state "drawing trumps", but also to say "drawing 3 trumps"? Are you not going a bit far? We know that a claimer never miscounts after the claim. Do we really want to assume that he has miscounted before the claim? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From adam at irvine.com Mon Dec 17 19:47:39 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:47:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:42:05 EST." Message-ID: <200712171842.KAA31407@mailhub.irvine.com> Paul wrote: > [Adam:] > And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT > is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). > > [paul lamford] No he didn't. Yes he did: "You might question the non-double of 3NT, but why on Earth should I double when I 'know' 3NT is going down and I ain't got any defense against 4D ?" That sounds like a good reason to me. > He gave a hand with the wrong number of cards > in each suit, where the auction was from another world. You're referring to his second post on this thread, which I didn't look over carefully. But maybe you missed his first one. -- Adam From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 17 19:48:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:48:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > > It is my understanding that if your action is one that would not be > considered by your peers you have fielded the psyche and it is classified as red. > After your partner has opened 1C on the hand in question, it is normal to double > 3NT. You are guessing that partner has psyched because the opponents are > vulnerable, and because your partner has psyched before. I regard this is an > unauthorised understanding, though I am happy to be persuaded that I am wrong by > weight of opinion here. That is what fora are for. > Is it unauthorized information to know that your partner has psyched before? In that case, bridge with a psycher becomes impossible. Is it unauthorized information to know that opponents never psyche? In that case, bridge against non-psychers becomes impossible. I know a bit about this case and if the South player realized that there are more than 40 points in this book it would have been totally impossible for him NOT to realize that his partner was light, not opponents. Whether he based his actions on that knowledge is hard to say, and unimportant if you consider the knowledge UI. But if you consider such knowledge UI, then partners of psychers are doomed if they meet non-psychers. They should just go shoot themselves. Might become an interesting tactic when playing against known psychers. "partner, opponents, against this pair I am not going to psyche, ever". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 20:05:41 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:41 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:47:58 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: "You might question the non-double of 3NT, but why on Earth should I double when I 'know' 3NT is going down and I ain't got any defense against 4D ?" [paul lamford] If East had psyched a 1NT overcall with, say D KQTxxxxx he would have pulled 3NT to 4D (clearly psyche-exposing) and not passed 3NT to go off in 100s. One can apply the argument that one is happy with the spot the opponents are in now to give a reason why one did not make the normal bid in any situation. If partner opens 1NT (whatever strength) at favourable and the next hand doubles we can say we don't redouble (assuming it is for blood) when we have S Axx H Axx D AQxxx C xx in case the doubler has C QJTxxxxx and can run to 2C doubled. Or in case he has 7 solid clubs and we go one off. We claim we are happy to score 1NTX +2 or +3. Nobody has produced a layout where everybody has their bid on the original hand here. Herman produces another extreme view (regarding the fact that partner sometimes psyches): "But if you consider such knowledge UI, then partners of psychers are doomed if they meet non-psychers. They should just go shoot themselves." Not at all. They have no idea whether the opponents are non-psychers anyway. It is, as you say, mainly irrelevant that partner psyches, unless he regularly opens 1C with a weak two in spades. All players have to do is to take action that is not indicative of an unauthorised understanding. And that is doubling 3NT on this hand. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 17 20:15:18 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:15:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: Message-ID: <002e01c840e1$2ad99160$6701a8c0@MARVIN> I do not understand most of these communications. A good but unfamiliar partner opened 1S in first seat, none vulnerable, next hand doubled, and I redoubled with my 13 HCP. My LHO jumped to 3H, raised to 4H. Someone is crazy here, and it certainly isn't the vulnerable opponents, so I don't double. Is that a crime? Of course not. Now, if it had been a regular partner, why could I not legally come to the same conclusion? The criterion is whether you would surely assume a psych when playing with a competent stranger. If the answer is yes, that assumption is legal when playing with a regular partner, regardless of history. There is nothing "special" about a partnership agreement to bid and play in accordance with normal bridge practice, which includes an occasional psych. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 20:30:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:30:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:19 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> I'd have awarded the remaining four tricks to E-W. >> The table action after the claim is irrelevant. E claimed >> two club tricks and gets them. It would not be "normal" >> (i.e. it would be "irrational", per the 1997 footnote) for >> W to throw the HA to keep more than one diamond, >> and he will thus take the last two tricks perforce. >> >> It would be a different story had E claimed three tricks >> holding -/ x/-/KQ10, as it would probably not be "irrational" >> for W to pitch the HA from -/A/10/- at trick 12. >> > +=+ Eric, are you saying that the second part of > (1997) Law 68B does not apply? (According > to Koen Grauwels West immediately protested.) > > WBFLC minute 10 of 28 October 2001: > "............ if the defender's partner immediately > objects to the concession, under Law 68B no > concession has occurred and by the same token > neither has any claim been made. After the Director > has been summoned play continues and Law 16 > may apply". No, Grattan, I am not saying that the second part of L68B does not apply. Where I have gone wrong, apparently, is in attempting to apply the second part of L68B, incorrectly, *according to its actual words*, rather than, correctly, according to some WBFLC leopard-loo minute number 10 of October 2001 of which I -- along with just about every other soul outside the WBFLC's inner circle -- was previously unaware. *My* L68B says that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" and that "if... partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred". That says that what "doesn't occur" is the "concession of the remainder" previously referred to. It says nothing about any potential non-occurrence of the "claim of some number of tricks" that gave rise to the "concession of the remainder"; that is presumably still hanging around "undisoccurred" to be ruled upon by the TD. Or would be, if some locked-away secret minute from the WBFLC didn't say otherwise. Now, of course, we have been graced by the revealed truth: "no concession" doesn't really mean "no concession"; it actually means "neither any concession nor any claim which may have resulted in such concession". How could we possibly have been fooled by the actual language of the law into not knowing that? The WBFLC with its minutes reminds me of the Soviet President in "Dr. Strangelove" with his doomsday machine. Both overlook the patently obvious fact that there is no point in having it unless you tell people about it. I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be superceded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent on a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2 only to the latter. Although this isn't explicitly stated, any other reading would require that both "play continues" [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that tells us how to manage that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 21:03:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:03:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2007, at 7:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does >> anyone dispute this principle? > > Richard Hills: > > The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle. > > EBU White Book, clause 70.5: > > A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally > assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is > some solidity. However, each individual case should be > considered. > Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 > opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be > normal to give him three tricks since it might be > considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with > 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than > irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. Now that's dumb! But at least it explains why Herman thinks we need a new laundry list of rules, if that's on the old one. Look, folks, there's two choices here. We can say that it is always abnormal to cash suits other than from the top down, period. Or we can concede that it would be abnormal with AK5 opp 42 but not abnormal with 754 opp void, thus burdening ourselves the need to find some new principle of jurisprudence which would suffice to determine whether cashing other than top down is or is not abnormal for every possible two-hand card combination. That should be doable if enough of us work on it hard enough for the next few decades. I think the former approach stands out. Of course (I find myself compelled to repeat here a point I've made several times already), it won't be relevant once the new laws take effect, as whether or not something is "considered irrational" won't matter any more -- unless and until the WBFLC gets around to issuing the (IMO necessary and inevitable) secret, undistributed, locked-in- the-leopard-loo, stand-the-words-on-their-heads minute that will say that it actually does still apply, despite its its obviously deliberate removal from the 1997 Laws by the authors of the 2008 version. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Mon Dec 17 21:06:47 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:06:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:42:05 EST." Message-ID: <200712172001.MAA32659@mailhub.irvine.com> Paul wrote: > In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:35:30 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com > writes: > > And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT > is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). > > [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number of cards > in each suit, where the auction was from another world. OK, now that I've looked more carefully at Alain's hand and your response---no, the auction was not from another world. His hand: > I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x > J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx > Kxx AQ. Regarding your response: > a) the 4-4-3-2 hand would double, not bid 1NT > b) the hand opposite would not bid 3NT, why would he think that even if > partner had the DK there would be nine tricks? > c) the hand is designed as a self-serving defence to explain your failure to > double 3NT > d) the 10-count is not an opening bid. (a), (b), and (d) are all wrong. First of all, I think many players would judge to make the bid that shows the HCP strength of the hand and the double stopper. Not all, but many. (Remember, after a 1NT overcall the partnership can still use Stayman to find the 4-4 major fit much of the time.) Second, there are many players who would bid 3NT with that diamond suit. Alan Truscott recommended this, if memory serves---he believed it was best to go ahead and raise a strong notrump to 3NT with AQxxxx or KQxxxx in a minor. Even if the suit doesn't run, there are still fair chances. (I think Andrew Gumperz made the same point on rec.games.bridge recently.) And if I had AQxxxx and a little bird told me that partner had the DK, I would fully expect to make 3NT. There are layouts where it wouldn't make, but this is heavily against the odds. Third, maybe *you* wouldn't open that hand, but that's irrelevant when you're making a ruling. I probably wouldn't open it but I might. In a way, you're proving one of my original points: directors should not assume they "know" what the "normal" bids are when deciding whether an auction is suspicious (or, in other situations, an "egregious error"). Bridge is a complicated game, and players have to make judgment calls in borderline cases. The hand Alain gave may not be the most likely possibility, but it's hardly from another planet. Similarly, the decisions South made during the auction may not be the choice of a majority of players, but neither are they without merit; and a director who assumes that there must be fielding going on because the director can't see the merit in South's decisions is not doing his job, IMHO. David Stevenson often said that in England, directors were expected to ask others before making a ruling that relied on bridge judgment. I'd hope that would happen on a hand like this; I'd think that if the director polled experienced players, he'd find out that South's actions might have been a little unusual but not unreasonble. That might raise enough suspicions to call this an amber psyche, but I think a red psyche is out of line. Of course, the original hand happened in Belgium, and I don't know what Belgian directors are expected to do---perhaps cook up a waffle or surrender to the Germans or something, I don't know. -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 22:10:26 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:26 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 17/12/2007 20:06:59 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number of cards > in each suit, where the auction was from another world. I was referring to the hand where he gave an overcall of 1NT on Jxx. and his partner raised to 3NT on 4-4 in the majors. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 22:21:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:21:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25DBFD89-F842-47DD-874C-5547C0029B6F@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> "Each individual case should be considered" is a >> necessary evil in some situations, not a wise >> principle to cover everything. > ..... >> have some principles so that two directors tend >> to get the same result. > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that this Procrustean Philosophy > is contrary to the 2007 Lawbook's Philosophy, as > described in Law 70A: > > "...the Director adjudicates the result of the > board as equitably as possible to both sides, but > any doubtful point as to a claim shall be > resolved against the claimer..." > > It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will > perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable > to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so. I trust that Richard carelessly wrote "will" when what he actually meant was "knows how to". IOW, if Mrs. Guggenheim and Mr. Helgemo both claim with the statement "making on a double squeeze", he will ask Mrs. Guggenheim to elaborate, while accepting Mr. Helgemo's claim straight off -- I would do the same, if I recognized Mr. Helgemo at sight. But if he is suggesting that he will award the rest of the tricks to Mr. Helgemo when he claims them without using the word "squeeze" and it turns out that the double squeeze is the only way to take them, I strongly disagree. We may have two different versions and four different interpretations of the "'normal'" footnote, but whichever version or interpretation we choose it remains precisely its point to tell us that we must not make presumptions that favorable to the claimer no matter how good a player he may be. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Mon Dec 17 22:42:03 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:42:03 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 17/12/2007 20:06:59 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com writes: >OK, now that I've looked more carefully at Alain's hand and your >response---no, the auction was not from another world. [paul lamford] Just to clarify, the hand on which I thought the auction was from another world was the following from Alain's post of 17/12/2007 08:28:43 GMT Standard Time "Scond, it isn't at all self-supporting to try and construct a hand where everybody more or less has his bid : : .......Qxx .......QJx .......Jxx .......Kxxx Axx KJxx Kx xxxx AQxxxx Kxxx Jxx x ........xxx ........Axx ........x .........AQxxxx In which case, doubling would be ridiculous." I repeat my claim that the 1NT overcall on the West hand and the raise to 3NT on the East hand is "from another world" and also the hearts and clubs have the wrong number of cards. I would be happy however, to accept your classification of amber if that is the majority view, but it is not mine. I did ask some strong players as to the action on Kxxx Kxxx Kxx AQ over 1C and they thought double was automatic, with second choice, obviously, 1NT. The odds change dramatically on raising a strong NT to 3NT on AQxxxx when you have nothing in clubs. Even when partner has the diamond king, you need a double stop in clubs and two quick tricks in the majors. A Bridge Dealer simulation, coupled with Deep Finesse, showed it to be making only 13% of the time. And only 1 out of 10 opened the 10 count with shabby clubs. Most people thought it was not even close. But the overriding argument is that you have a balanced 9 count, when you might have only 4 or 5 with more clubs. It is overwhelmingly likely someone has psyched, as the attempts to construct a hand where everyone has his bid inolve odd actions by everyone at each stage. And why would partner psyche 1C as dealer, with no preemptive effect? I would be suspecting the 1NT overcaller myself. You have concluded partner has psyched primarily because he is at favourable vulnerability, or maybe because of previous psyches, but as Herman says they are only relevant if in a similar situation. No problem at all about the raise to 2C. But you add insult to injury when you contrive a cock and bull story to explain why you did not double 3NT. I think you should ask Michael Winterbottom if he needs any assistance. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 22:53:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:53:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <044501c84068$bf8af2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <044501c84068$bf8af2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4A508CD2-4489-4593-895F-7D5BA83D8D87@starpower.net> On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:53 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> No, I think you know someone must have psyched, and you have >> guessed is >> your >> partner when you fail to double. Not permitted, as I understand >> the laws. >> > I have never been comfortable with this. It seems that if it is 100% > obvious that someone has psyched, you should be allowed to guess > that it was > your partner. If it is not 100% obvious, then I think you must > assume that > everyone has a hand that would barely justify their bidding. We should be careful not to fall into the same categorical fallacy that has afflicted the adherents of the "De Wael school" approach to uncertainty about bidding agreements. We will find ourselves trapped into nonsensical arguments if we mistakenly assume that "you are not permitted to guess that partner has psyched" is equivalent to "you are obliged to guess that partner has not psyched". Good players understand (if only intuitively) that probabilistically weighted strategies may involve actions that would be different from those suggested by *any* available "guess". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 22:55:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:55:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: [snip] >If a player is capable of executing a double squeeze, is >he not also capable of mentioning it? Richard Hills: Amongst British experts of the 1950s and 60s it was considered professional courtesy by defenders to concede to an unmentioned double squeeze by quietly returning their cards to the slots. Anyway, with an unmentioned line of play one has to draw the line somewhere. K2 QJ T9 A3 If a player is capable of not crashing the ace and king together, is he not also capable of mentioning it? ;-) Since few claims succeed on all legal plays of all the remaining cards, the word "normal" and the phrase "class of player" are necessary evils. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 23:16:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:16:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <25DBFD89-F842-47DD-874C-5547C0029B6F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c840fa$7ac76a30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................... > I would do the same, if I recognized Mr. Helgemo at sight. Trust me, you couldn't miss him! Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 17 23:18:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:18:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0712161655tbfbd3e6y59ec16b51a24f430@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712161937m6843c9a1r81acff0206aa5015@mail.gmail.com> <045901c8406a$34e43060$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <81AFAADD-78DB-4520-9252-F41BF315AE98@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > RH: > >>> It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will >>> perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable >>> to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so. >>> > JF: > >> I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part of the >> text of >> the laws for contested claims. We are talking about the new laws, >> right? >> > Yes, I had thought that the reason for removing the "class of player" > reference was precisely so that Helgemo and Mrs Guggenheim do not > receive > different rulings on a statement-less claim. The reference to "class of player" has not, contrary to rumor, been removed from TFLB. It appears in the 2008 laws exactly as it did in the 1997 laws. Only the words "but not irrational" have been removed. However, its *inclusion* means precisely that Mr. Helgemo and Mrs. Guggenheim must not receive different rulings on their statement-less claims. That is both what the 2008 footnote says, and what we have been told the WBFLC intended it to say. Indeed, the originally published 1997 footnote said exactly the same thing. The only version of the footnote that said anything different was one that appeared in a secret WBFLC leopard-loo minute (revealed to BLMLers only through Grattan's good graces) which said that the footnote was to be read not as written, but rather as though what it actually said was... . > If a player is capable of executing a double squeeze, is he not > also capable > of mentioning it? ...and capable of understanding that L68C applies to him just like it does to everyone else, notwithstanding his awesome capability for finding double squeezes? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 17 23:53:32 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:53:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > any other reading would require that both "play > continues" [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and > I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that tells us > how to manage that. Not yet. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 17 23:58:45 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:58:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <200712172001.MAA32659@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200712172001.MAA32659@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Stevenson often said that in England, directors were expected to > ask others before making a ruling that relied on bridge judgment. He still says it. :-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 18 00:51:36 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:51:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net><003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim .............................................................................. > I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent on a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2 only to the latter. Although this isn't explicitly stated, any other reading would require that both "play continues" [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that tells us how to manage that. > +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased to be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 18 01:47:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:47:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Attempted defender's concession (was claim) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be >superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly >distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent on >a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2 >only to the latter. Although this isn't explicitly stated, >any other reading would require that both "play continues" >[L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and >I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that >tells us how to manage that. Richard Hills: Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of [68B]1 preceding". As the old joke says, "You can't get there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)." 2007 Law 68B2: Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. Richard Hills: Yes, the 1997 version of Law 68B was dreadfully inadequate, hence the need for the 2001 minute interpreting it. (Eric and I agree that that 2001 minute should have been better publicised.) The new 2007 Law 68B2 has several useful statements which did not appear in the 1997 Law 68B: "Play continues" "not a penalty card" "Law 16D applies" Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Dec 18 01:58:50 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:58:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200712122312.lBCNBxvY007841@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712122312.lBCNBxvY007841@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47671B4A.5090006@nhcc.net> > From: Jesper Dybdal > I would prefer a loose interpretation of "incorporates" where the TD > could use L27C even if the replacement call does not completely > incorporate the meaning of the insufficient bid... As others have said, I don't think the 2007 Laws allow this -- not surprising, really, given the history. Up until now, the auction could continue normally only in very restricted circumstances: one specific replacement bid allowed and not even that if anything was conventional. The new rule is based on the _meaning_ of the original bid and replacement call, and up to seven possible replacement calls might be allowed (five bids, pass, or double but never redouble). I think it behooves the TD to be very careful that the IB information really is incorporated in the replacement call. We had a good example a few weeks ago: 1C-1S-1H (oops, attempt to replace with x). Most players will say "Of course the double promises at least four hearts" (and mean it), but on further examination, for nearly all pairs there are hands without four hearts that have to double. So this is normally a 27D case, not 27C, despite initial appearance. What the new Laws do allow is something like 2NT-P-2D(oops, replace with 3D, still showing hearts). They also allow 2NT-P-2H (oops, replace with 3D, where 2H was natural over 1NT but 3D is a transfer over 2NT.) Even these examples are slightly problematic because of strength ranges, but usually they should be OK. If the TD rules initially under 27C and later finds it to be a mistake, I think the only recourse is 82C. However, this is highly undesirable. The adjusted score will be on the basis of IBer's partner being barred, and the IBer making a "good guess" for his side but a "bad guess" for the NOS. > Though I admit that there is a certain pure logic in the > strict interpretation, I think it is a pity - it would be better to > allow more hands to be played normally, with a possibility of adjusted > score if something goes wrong. An alternative to the new Law would have been to let the IBer to whatever he wants but make the withdrawn bid UI to partner. For whatever reason, the drafting subcommittee rejected that option. As an aside, I don't understand why the new rules restrict the replacement call to non-jump bids nor why redoubles are excluded. If one of these would have "incorporated" the information, why not allow it? I guess we'll have to wait for 2018, but the present revision covers the most common cases. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Dec 18 04:28:35 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:28:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law49andconsequences In-Reply-To: <200712122237.lBCMb2jK000378@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712122237.lBCMb2jK000378@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47673E63.7020406@nhcc.net> SW>As Sven says, there are no such qualifications in L49, though an SW>adjusted score to protect defenders would be normal if the exposure was SW>somehow caused by the declaring side's irregularity. > From: "Sven Pran" > I do not see how declaring side's irregularity (except by using violence) > can cause exposure of a defender's card(s)? I confess I've never seen a case in actual play, but it's easy to imagine examples. Declarer (or dummy) might knock over his water glass, causing a defender to expose cards in getting out of the way. Or if that constitutes "violence," declarer might make some rude remark. Either way, L74A2 is relevant, and the NOS should be protected. I'd say the normal way is via L12A1 and 12C1, but there may be other routes. Of course there should also be conduct penalties if the action is deliberate or egregious, but score adjustment is a separate matter. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Dec 18 04:32:37 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:32:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > None > None > None > 432 > 8 64 > None None > None None > AK Q > 75 > 3 > None > None > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer an example where it works badly? As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will result in random rulings. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 18 04:52:25 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:52:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 andlaw49andconsequences In-Reply-To: <47673E63.7020406@nhcc.net> References: <200712122237.lBCMb2jK000378@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673E63.7020406@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1D38655F3F9D44FDA2F5FCEBA86EED4E@erdos> Steve Willner" writes: To: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 andlaw49andconsequences > SW>As Sven says, there are no such qualifications in L49, though an > SW>adjusted score to protect defenders would be normal if the exposure was > SW>somehow caused by the declaring side's irregularity. > > > From: "Sven Pran" >> I do not see how declaring side's irregularity (except by using violence) >> can cause exposure of a defender's card(s)? > > I confess I've never seen a case in actual play, but it's easy to > imagine examples. Declarer (or dummy) might knock over his water glass, > causing a defender to expose cards in getting out of the way. Or if > that constitutes "violence," declarer might make some rude remark. If a defender is using a card-holder, it is quite reasonable for someone to accidentally knock it over (say, while reaching for a convention card), exposing all of the defender's cards. This is clearly an inadvertent irregularity. (I haven't seen this yet, but it must happen occasionally.) > Either way, L74A2 is relevant, and the NOS should be protected. I'd say > the normal way is via L12A1 and 12C1, but there may be other routes. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 18 04:52:25 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:52:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 andlaw49andconsequences In-Reply-To: <47673E63.7020406@nhcc.net> References: <200712122237.lBCMb2jK000378@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673E63.7020406@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1D38655F3F9D44FDA2F5FCEBA86EED4E@erdos> Steve Willner" writes: To: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 andlaw49andconsequences > SW>As Sven says, there are no such qualifications in L49, though an > SW>adjusted score to protect defenders would be normal if the exposure was > SW>somehow caused by the declaring side's irregularity. > > > From: "Sven Pran" >> I do not see how declaring side's irregularity (except by using violence) >> can cause exposure of a defender's card(s)? > > I confess I've never seen a case in actual play, but it's easy to > imagine examples. Declarer (or dummy) might knock over his water glass, > causing a defender to expose cards in getting out of the way. Or if > that constitutes "violence," declarer might make some rude remark. If a defender is using a card-holder, it is quite reasonable for someone to accidentally knock it over (say, while reaching for a convention card), exposing all of the defender's cards. This is clearly an inadvertent irregularity. (I haven't seen this yet, but it must happen occasionally.) > Either way, L74A2 is relevant, and the NOS should be protected. I'd say > the normal way is via L12A1 and 12C1, but there may be other routes. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 18 23:58:41 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:58:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20071218145638.01c10c28@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 07:32 PM 17/12/2007, you wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > None > > None > > None > > 432 > > 8 64 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q > > 75 > > 3 > > None > > None > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > >Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer >an example where it works badly? > >As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will >result in random rulings. and if it is West who claims having forgotten the outstanding trump, he gets to discard a spade on the trump lead, but what about East? I will have him discard a spade as well, Tony (Sydney) From Gampas at aol.com Sat Dec 15 17:05:12 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:05:12 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 15/12/2007 15:24:33 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: [Paul] The following occurred to me during a butler interclub "competition" . I was sitting West. So, here the hands and the biddings (no alerts) : Dealer North, EW vulnerable. .......KJT985..........W....N....E....S .......53...................1C...1NT..2C .......T872............3NT..p....p....p .......5 4.............A76 764...........AKT92 AK93..........Q5 AJ973.........Q42 .......Q32 .......QJ8 .......J64 .......KT86 North has psyched before. Result : 3NT + 3 after a "cautious" C lead by South. I assume implicit partnership understanding a.o. by the bidding behaviour by South. Does a TD have the right (duty ?) to react if he sees this happen, and if so, how ? Sven: I see nothing irregular or strange in calls or lead made by South? He has a flat 9HCP ordinary raise to 2C, nothing else, and leading a small club against 3NT seems quite normal to me? How the behaviour by South can suggest implicit partnership understanding is beyond me. [nige1] We walruses find South's behaviour suspicious. Some of us would double 1N. Most would double 3N, given that we seem to have an excellent lead and most of the high cards. Luckily, in the UK, we *do* have a mechanism that caters for this kind of occurrence. As I understand the protocol: We color-code the pysch and record it. If the director considers South's actions to be so suspicious that if many different South's duplicated his behaviour then most would be using UI or a CPU then he may impose a penalty. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071215/6ad7eff9/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 18 09:47:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:47:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to > get at. > I don't think I need to repeat my views, though. >> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. > > It does? How? > >> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red >> aces". > > It is? How? Does one of these indicate that "claimer believes that > all his cards are high" and other not? Does one of them entitle him > to a different presumptive line than the other? Is there supposed to > be some presumptive difference in the proposed line of play based on > some difference between "last trump" and "spade ten, and by the way > spades are trumps"? Does one of them obviate the applicability of > L70D-E and the other not? I just don't get it. > My point is that if you ask a player how he would play a certain combination, it does depend on how you express yourself. Both Eric and Sven regard the "last" trump as a "high" card, whereas I see a difference between the two - just note that every time this example is given, trumps are explained as being "all gone", while the other suits are just plain "high". That is a difference and your saying it's all the same does not make it thus. >> But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so >> stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you >> not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? > > The only "rule" we need, such as it is, is exactly what Sven has > said: No Eric, I was not saying we need Sven's rule or mine, but just that we NEED a rule. You keep saying it's obvious from the lawbook, and so do I, so it's plainly NOT obvious. So we need an interpretation. I don't really care which one, but don't go saying your interpretation must be the correct one. > A claimer who believes that he can take the rest by running > all of his suits but has not specified the sequence in which he will > play them is presumed to play them in the least advantageous order. But he has not stated that! He has said "all are mine". He has not named any lines, and it is up to us to make a list of all the lines he could be playing, and then of selecting the least successful one. You say he has stated that he can "take the rest by running all his suits", but that is not what he has said. He has said that his side suits are high, and no trumps are left. You say that equates to him "running all suits". I say that it equates to him running side suits and keeping trumps till last. > That is really nothing more than a paraphrase of L70D. There is no > justification for abandoning this principle just because one of his > "running" suits happens to be trumps. Of course there is justification for that. Safety for one. > Any rule that would specify a > presumptive order would imply that the "normal" action when you have > forgotten that there is still a card outstanding in a suit you > thought you held all the remaining cards of -- whether trumps or not > -- depends on the rank of the card you forgot about, which is > patently absurd! > No of course that's not absurd. We do define normal as top-down, don't we? So it does matter if it's the 6 or the 4 you forgot about! If you want to call that rule into question as well then you'd probably also give a trick from A2 - K3. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 18 11:26:48 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:26:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c84160$7f99c970$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Dec 17, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > David Stevenson often said that in England, directors were expected to > > ask others before making a ruling that relied on bridge judgment. > > He still says it. :-) We say the same in Norway! 8-) From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 18 11:42:14 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:42:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601c84162$a7ba1610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > None > > None > > None > > 432 > > 8 64 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q > > 75 > > 3 > > None > > None > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more > > trumps out and both my spades are good". > > How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? Swap the S8 and the S6 and you see the importance of Law 70: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card..." This is a perfect example to show why we must be very careful in defining "normal lines of play". Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 18 12:48:33 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:48:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4767B391.7000708@ntlworld.com> [David Burn] Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: None None None 432 8 64 None None None None AK Q 75 3 None None South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? [Steve Willner] Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer an example where it works badly? As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will result in random rulings. [nige1] If declarer's spades are 97 instead of 75, then opponents would prefer declarer to "cash" the lower spade first :) But Steve is right that almost any standard assumption is better than inconsistent and unfair rulings. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 18 13:02:00 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:02:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> [SW] > From: "David Burn" > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > None > None > None > 432 > 8 64 > None None > None None > AK Q > 75 > 3 > None > None > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer an example where it works badly? [DALB] Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, since he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, only one by playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my spades are good", he will complain having been ruled against according to the de Wael protocol, "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? David Burn London, England From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 18 13:39:10 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:39:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20071218145638.01c10c28@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071218145638.01c10c28@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4767BF6E.2010809@ntlworld.com> The justification for encouraging claims is that they - Save opponents unnecessary thought and - Speed up the game. Hence, a clinching argument for standard assumptions about claims (such as those proposed by Herman) is that they would save - Hassle and - Time. A claimer would no longer need to dot every i and cross every t, to make his intentions clear. He would need to specify only *abnormal* lines. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 18 13:57:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:57:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> Message-ID: <4767C3D1.10001@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SW] > >> From: "David Burn" >> Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: >> >> None >> None >> None >> 432 >> 8 64 >> None None >> None None >> AK Q >> 75 >> 3 >> None >> None >> >> South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and >> both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? > > [DALB] > > Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, since > he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, only one by > playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my spades are good", he > will complain having been ruled against according to the de Wael protocol, > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? > But that's not a problem, David, since the other protocol will also rule him down - so there is no discussion on this case. Rather, if we change the cards in the way Sven indicated: 6 84 75 Now, the De Wael protocol will give opponents only one trick, while Sven will give 2 (playing the 5 first being a normal line in his book). I don't think this example should be used here, though. Claimer thought all his cards were high and there were apparently still 2 higher ones out. I don't think we should be using this as a decider on which rules to make. Let's stick to more simpler cases, and if they give claimer an additional trick here, so be it. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 14:38:45 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:38:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> Message-ID: <20071218083845.053ffaff@linuxbox> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:02:00 -0000 "David Burn" wrote: > [SW] > > > From: "David Burn" > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > None > > None > > None > > 432 > > 8 64 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q > > 75 > > 3 > > None > > None > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps > > out and both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone > offer an example where it works badly? > > [DALB] > > Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, > since he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, > only one by playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my > spades are good", he will complain having been ruled against > according to the de Wael protocol, "why shouldn't I lead either of > them first?" Why indeed? > I realise you were providing an example as requested, David - but couldn't the answer to the claimer's question be :- "Because, Mr. Claimer, the regulations state that you are assumed to play suits top down in this sort of situation. If you want to play them bottom up in case you forgot an outstanding high card, you have to say so when you claim." This treatment seems to me to be no more unfair to claimers who forget a high card than is the way we treat those who don't state a line at all, or who state a line that's not possible. It certainly ought to stop any (valid!) complaints along the lines you suggest. Of course, it would require an administrator or several to stop contemplating their navels and actually introduce such regulations. Brian. -- From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 18 15:45:40 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:45:40 -0600 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be><54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 02:47 Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines > Eric Landau wrote: >> I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to >> get at. >> > > I don't think I need to repeat my views, though. > >>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. >> >> It does? How? >> >>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red >>> aces". >> >> It is? How? Does one of these indicate that "claimer believes that >> all his cards are high" and other not? Does one of them entitle him >> to a different presumptive line than the other? Is there supposed to >> be some presumptive difference in the proposed line of play based on >> some difference between "last trump" and "spade ten, and by the way >> spades are trumps"? Does one of them obviate the applicability of >> L70D-E and the other not? I just don't get it. >> > > My point is that if you ask a player how he would play a certain > combination, it does depend on how you express yourself. Both Eric and > Sven regard the "last" trump as a "high" card, whereas I see a > difference between the two - just note that every time this example is > given, trumps are explained as being "all gone", while the other suits > are just plain "high". That is a difference and your saying it's all > the same does not make it thus. > >>> But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are you so >>> stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are you >>> not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of uniformity? >> >> The only "rule" we need, such as it is, is exactly what Sven has >> said: > > No Eric, I was not saying we need Sven's rule or mine, but just that > we NEED a rule. You keep saying it's obvious from the lawbook, and so > do I, so it's plainly NOT obvious. So we need an interpretation. I > don't really care which one, but don't go saying your interpretation > must be the correct one. If one seeks to make use of Occam's Razor he will notice after the 30 or 40 years of finding such a rule that no rule, whether simple or complex, has been found that satisfies the law. One of the explanations for such an occurrence is that there is no such rule to be found. However, it may well be possible to write such a rule and then construct law so that the rule satisfies that law. And in that instance I can assure you that the law will prove unsatisfactory. It may be worthy to consider that your perception that such a rule is a necessity may be proof that the law itself is unsatisfactory. regards roger pewick >> A claimer who believes that he can take the rest by running >> all of his suits but has not specified the sequence in which he will >> play them is presumed to play them in the least advantageous order. > > But he has not stated that! He has said "all are mine". He has not > named any lines, and it is up to us to make a list of all the lines he > could be playing, and then of selecting the least successful one. > > You say he has stated that he can "take the rest by running all his > suits", but that is not what he has said. He has said that his side > suits are high, and no trumps are left. You say that equates to him > "running all suits". I say that it equates to him running side suits > and keeping trumps till last. > >> That is really nothing more than a paraphrase of L70D. There is no >> justification for abandoning this principle just because one of his >> "running" suits happens to be trumps. > > Of course there is justification for that. Safety for one. > >> Any rule that would specify a >> presumptive order would imply that the "normal" action when you have >> forgotten that there is still a card outstanding in a suit you >> thought you held all the remaining cards of -- whether trumps or not >> -- depends on the rank of the card you forgot about, which is >> patently absurd! >> > > No of course that's not absurd. We do define normal as top-down, don't > we? So it does matter if it's the 6 or the 4 you forgot about! > If you want to call that rule into question as well then you'd > probably also give a trick from A2 - K3. > >> >> Eric Landau > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 15:57:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:57:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] FW: proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4766C357.6020803@skynet.be> References: <4763BE8B.7080508@skynet.be> <4766C357.6020803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9CC27784-41E1-49BF-9293-D37E20355C26@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> If we accept the stricter "American" interpretation of L70C, > > permit me to rephrase that: > when in America, where a player who does not mention trumps can be > deemed to have forgotten them, > >> that >> rule is L70C3 as written, unless the claimer can demonstrate the >> applicability of L70C2. We do, however, still need a rule to tell us >> how many rounds of trumps should be presumed to be drawn by a claimer >> who has stated that he will draw all the trumps; there does not seem >> to be any common practice in this regard. "Hard-liners" in effect >> require the claimer to have a valid claim; they presume he will draw >> as many rounds as there are outstanding trumps regardless of the >> actual lie. Others exclude as "abnormal" continuing to draw trumps >> after both sides have shown out (e.g. claimer may be given the >> benefit of an unstated variation which would succeed against 4-1 >> trumps but fail against 5-0 provided trumps are in fact 3-2, but not >> if they are 4-1). In either case, however, many (myself included) >> will rule that if the claimer has included in his statement the >> *number* of outstanding trumps (or otherwise demonstrated his >> awareness of that number), he is presumed to be counting, in which >> case it becomes "normal" to stop drawing trumps as soon as they're >> gone. >> > > So not only do you wish a claimer at trick one to state "drawing > trumps", but also to say "drawing 3 trumps"? No. > Are you not going a bit far? No. If by "far" Herman means more harsh on bad claims, then I am going less far than some others would. > We know that a claimer never miscounts after the claim. Do we really > want to assume that he has miscounted before the claim? No. A player who states that he is drawing trumps and taking the rest asserts that he can draw trumps and take the rest even if the trumps split all to one hand. If he is right (as he will be 99.99% of the time), his claim is patently valid, and we go on the next hand. The number of trumps outstanding doesn't matter. There is no question, much less presumption, of a miscount. But suppose the claim is wrong, so that if trump actually split all to one hand the claimer would go down. But on the actual hand, trumps break favorably, so that if he were to stop pulling them as soon as they were actually all gone he could not go down on any normal line thereafter. Does he get his claimed tricks? The hard line is no: he has undertaken to make all the tricks by drawing as many rounds of trumps as there are trumps outstanding, and if he cannot do so, too bad. The soft line is yes: it is not "normal" to continue to pull trumps after they're all gone. I split the difference: pulling an extra round trumps after they're all gone is careless but "normal", but continuing to pull trumps after both opponents have shown out is not "normal". I argue by analogy to L70E. A declarer in a position to recover from a bad claim either by abandoning pulling trumps before accounting for an all-nothing break or by taking an unmentioned finesse may do so only if it has, or will in the normal course of play, been "proven" by the relevant opponent(s) showing out. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 16:09:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:09:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> References: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gampas at aol.com wrote: >> >> It is my understanding that if your action is one that would not be >> considered by your peers you have fielded the psyche and it is >> classified as red. >> After your partner has opened 1C on the hand in question, it is >> normal to double >> 3NT. You are guessing that partner has psyched because the >> opponents are >> vulnerable, and because your partner has psyched before. I regard >> this is an >> unauthorised understanding, though I am happy to be persuaded that >> I am wrong by >> weight of opinion here. That is what fora are for. >> > Is it unauthorized information to know that your partner has psyched > before? In that case, bridge with a psycher becomes impossible. > Is it unauthorized information to know that opponents never psyche? > In that case, bridge against non-psychers becomes impossible. > > I know a bit about this case and if the South player realized that > there are more than 40 points in this book it would have been totally > impossible for him NOT to realize that his partner was light, not > opponents. Whether he based his actions on that knowledge is hard to > say, and unimportant if you consider the knowledge UI. > > But if you consider such knowledge UI, then partners of psychers are > doomed if they meet non-psychers. They should just go shoot > themselves. Might become an interesting tactic when playing against > known psychers. "partner, opponents, against this pair I am not going > to psyche, ever". Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes what has been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now incorporated into TFLB. You are now permitted to psych only if "[your] partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". As the ACBL interprets these words, they mean that you may not psych if you are aware that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- but your opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. They mean that you may not psych if you have previously -- ever -- perpetrated even a vaguely similar psych with your current partner. They mean, in the words of Edgar Kaplan, that you have an absolute right to psych provided you never actually do it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 16:20:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:20:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <002e01c840e1$2ad99160$6701a8c0@MARVIN> References: <002e01c840e1$2ad99160$6701a8c0@MARVIN> Message-ID: <7C24F53B-EB71-4FD4-8D38-2755CB3B25F2@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > I do not understand most of these communications. > > A good but unfamiliar partner opened 1S in first seat, none > vulnerable, next hand doubled, and I redoubled with my 13 HCP. My > LHO jumped to 3H, raised to 4H. > > Someone is crazy here, and it certainly isn't the vulnerable > opponents, so I don't double. Is that a crime? Of course not. In ACBL-think, it's not a crime; it's a punishment. The crime was partner's psych. > Now, if it had been a regular partner, why could I not legally come > to the same conclusion? Because the ACBL has so decreed. It may make no sense, as Marvin rightly suggests, but, hey, it's the ACBL. > The criterion is whether you would surely assume a psych when > playing with a competent stranger. If the answer is yes, that > assumption is legal when playing with a regular partner, regardless > of history. C'mon, Marv, you play in the ACBL; you know better. "Should be", obviously; "is", no. > There is nothing "special" about a partnership agreement to bid and > play in accordance with normal bridge practice, which includes an > occasional psych. But anything the ACBL declares to be "special", no matter how arbitrarily, is. For that we can thank the toadies of the WBF who will not cross the ACBL no matter what the latter does. Indeed, they have taken this previously de facto policy and enacted it de jure in TF2008LB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 16:21:45 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:21:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0712180721n728d5f26ye038eac53dacc0ab@mail.gmail.com> On 12/18/07, Eric Landau wrote: > Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes what has > been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now incorporated into > TFLB. You are now permitted to psych only if "[your] partner has no > more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". > As the ACBL interprets these words, they mean that you may not psych > if you are aware that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- > but your opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if > your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. They mean > that you may not psych if you have previously -- ever -- perpetrated > even a vaguely similar psych with your current partner. They mean, > in the words of Edgar Kaplan, that you have an absolute right to > psych provided you never actually do it. I'm (somewhat) surprised that no one has ever turned this line of argument upside down. Lets assume for the moment that I am playing against a partnership that never psyches. One might make the argument that is is equally important that this type of information gets disclosed... -- "First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs." Peter Ellis From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 18 16:33:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:33:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be><54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4767E85B.4010400@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > If one seeks to make use of Occam's Razor he will notice after the 30 or 40 > years of finding such a rule that no rule, whether simple or complex, has > been found that satisfies the law. One of the explanations for such an > occurrence is that there is no such rule to be found. > I feel Roger is mistaken. Rather, when one tried to formulate a rule, others rallied against it, no matter how high the framing party was. Remember my attempt to have the EBLAC decision accepted as precedent? Rather than accept this, Sven still tries to say that the laws have been violated. > > > However, it may well be possible to write such a rule and then construct law > so that the rule satisfies that law. And in that instance I can assure you > that the law will prove unsatisfactory. > > No, the law is satisfactory - it is just that different people have different ideas of what is "normal", perhaps because they have different backgrounds. Those ideas must be brought in line, or we must accept that rulings are different from one TD to another. > > It may be worthy to consider that your perception that such a rule is a > necessity may be proof that the law itself is unsatisfactory. > But the law itself (well the new law) sees fit to call upon NBOs to write regulation supplementing the law. Whereby the WBF acknowledges that different parts of the world have different ideas about "normal". I have no problems with New Zealand applying a different regulation, but when I see how close I am to the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France and England, I would not like to see any of those countries chose a different approach as Belgium's. Which is why I urge the EBL to write the regulations the WBF is asking for, once, for all countries. If a coutry wishes to change something about it, then they are allowed to, but they are then the reason for regulations being different, no longer the WBF. > > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 18 16:35:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:35:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <4767BF6E.2010809@ntlworld.com> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20071218145638.01c10c28@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4767BF6E.2010809@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4767E8C4.1010005@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > The justification for encouraging claims is that they > - Save opponents unnecessary thought and > - Speed up the game. > > Hence, a clinching argument for standard assumptions about claims > (such as those proposed by Herman) is that they would save > - Hassle and > - Time. > > A claimer would no longer need to dot every i and cross every t, to > make his intentions clear. He would need to specify only *abnormal* lines. > Yet another argument for regulating what normal lines are! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 18 16:45:15 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:45:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0712180721n728d5f26ye038eac53dacc0ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c8418d$26448cc0$7ecb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > On 12/18/07, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes >> what has been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now >> incorporated into TFLB. You are now permitted to psych >> only if "[your] partner has no more reason to be aware of >> the deviation than have the opponents". As the ACBL interprets >> these words, they mean that you may not psych if you are aware >> that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- but your >> opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if >> your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. >> They mean that you may not psych if you have previously -- >> ever -- perpetrated even a vaguely similar psych with your >> current partner. They mean, in the words of Edgar Kaplan, >> that you have an absolute right to psych provided you never >> actually do it. > (Richard) > I'm (somewhat) surprised that no one has ever turned this line > of argument upside down. > +=+ The WBF has made a statement on the nature of a heightened awareness that I would expect it to continue in the interpretation of 2007 Law 40C1. The statement appears in the Code of Practice under 'Psychic Calls'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 18 17:10:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:10:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu><47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> Message-ID: <001a01c84190$760f4f30$7ecb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > [SW] > >> From: "David Burn" >> Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: >> >> None >> None >> None >> 432 >> 8 64 >> None None >> None None >> AK Q >> 75 >> 3 >> None >> None >> >> South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and >> both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? > > [DALB] > > Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, since > he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, only one by > playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my spades are good", he > will complain having been ruled against according to the de Wael protocol, > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? > [Grattan] +=+ Hmmm... rhetorical question..... ""always subject to any other requirement of this law" (70E2. Now, how does this sit with 70D1? +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 17:15:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:15:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net><003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> <010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:51 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > ...................................................................... > ........ >> I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to > be superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly > distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent > on a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2 > only to the latter. Although this isn't explicitly stated, any > other reading would require that both "play continues" [L68B2] > while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and I doubt > very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that tells us > how to manage that. >> > +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' > and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous > and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the > other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and > I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am > right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased > to be. That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. So where does that leave us on the subject? We have laws that tell us how to deal with claims. We have laws that tell us how to deal with concessions. But now we have a third, related, thing, neither a claim not a concession, but a "synchronous and inseparable" something that has aspects of both. This entity is not mentioned in the lawbook. The rules governing it are, I imagine, not merely locked in the leopard-loo, but already tied up in a burn bag labeled "trash, discard with the 1997 lawbook". If precedent is any guide, we will learn these rules about the time the 201x lawbook is published. We would be a whole lot better off if we could simply assume that L68B1 means what is says. It says we have some tricks that have been claimed, to which the laws regarding claims presumably apply, and other tricks that have been conceded, to which the laws regarding concessions presumably apply. It makes it clear that the claim and the concession are disjoint entities, involving different tricks. There is no mention or suggestion of any mysterious "synchronous and inseparable" part-claim-part-concession entity governed by secret rules from 2001. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Tue Dec 18 17:23:38 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:23:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:09:39 EST." Message-ID: <200712181618.IAA13699@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes what has > been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now incorporated into > TFLB. You are now permitted to psych only if "[your] partner has no > more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". > As the ACBL interprets these words, they mean that you may not psych > if you are aware that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- > but your opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if > your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. Eric, I can't see how the wording you quote can be interpreted in a way that makes the opponents' psyching practices relevant at all. The phrase has to do with the opponents' awareness of your deviation. I personally never psych. Well, almost never; my last psych was about six years ago, although to be fair I should mention that my playing time has been cut drastically in recent years. But that has nothing to do with my awareness that other players do sometimes psych. I can't see how my own psyching practices could possibly put any sort of restrictions on the opponents', particularly since opponents who don't know me have no way of knowing how much I psych or don't psych, AND OBVIOUSLY I DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW AHEAD OF TIME. Are you sure the ACBL interprets the quote in the nonsensical way you described it? Can you cite something they've said? (By the way, I'm not disagreeing with any of your post other than this last particular sentence.) -- Adam From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 18 17:39:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:39:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net><003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred><010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> <8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c84194$92a65a40$7ecb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:51 PM, > wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> ...................................................................... >> +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' >> and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous >> and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the >> other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and >> I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am >> right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased >> to be. > > That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 > law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the > law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still > does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was > intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 > lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a > law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six > years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. > +=+ It is my personal view that the principle has not changed in the 2007 Laws. If this is so, then neither has the interpretation. If anything has changed it lies in what Richard Hills observed - viz. ............................................................................................... "Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of [68B]1 preceding". As the old joke says, "You can't get there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)." 2007 Law 68B2: Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it." ........................................................................................... Defender has attempted to concede one or more tricks. His partner has immediately objected. The Director is summoned. Play continues under the stated conditions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 18 18:37:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:37:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47680555.3050903@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > It is my understanding that if your action is one that would not be > considered by your peers you have fielded the psyche and it is classified as red. > After your partner has opened 1C on the hand in question, it is normal to double > 3NT. You are guessing that partner has psyched because the opponents are > vulnerable, and because your partner has psyched before. I regard this is an > unauthorised understanding Say opponents, too, occasionally psyche. Do you really intend to mean that the knowledge of vulnerability, which makes it about 20/1 that partner is the joker, is unauthorized understanding ? BTA, I'd prefer to assume that nobody psyched, only everybody is a bit light. And in this case, as I explained before, it is obvious *not* to double, lest them find 4D instead of going down in 3NT. You might also try all sorts of IMP calculations, eg if they go 3 down instead of making 3D+1, you only win 4 IMPs by doubling (-14 instead of +10), but if they escape to 4D, you lose the 10 IMPs you were bound to win in 3NT-3. The principle that one doesn't double very strange contracts, only normal contracts that happen to be unlucky, surely applies. All this maes me say double is a bad, bad bid. Refusing to bid badly should never be considered as fielding. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 18 18:39:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c8419c$ebc94940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 > law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the > law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still > does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was > intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 > lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a > law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six > years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. Frankly I have a strong feeling that it is your logic which is flawed: Law 68A defines the term "claim". Law 68B defines the term "concession" and adds a tie between these two terms to the effect that they together concern exactly all the remaining tricks to be played. When either a claim or a concession has been made every single remaining trick is either claimed or conceded but not both. Law 68B2 further establishes the rule that if a concession by a defender is immediately objected to by his partner then no concession has occurred, and from the above then neither has any claim occurred. This means that both the attempted concession and the associated claim are nullified and that play continues (with certain specified restrictions). Effectively this has been the incorporation of the related WBF minute from 2001 into the laws, a result with which I for one have absolutely no problem. Do you really have? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 18 18:43:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:43:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476806C5.4090703@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:35:30 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com > writes: > > And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT > is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). > > [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number of cards > in each suit, where the auction was from another world. > But anyway the auction was from a world where there are 46 points in a deck. And in that case, tha right way to react to avoid fielding isn't to presume som?body has psyched, but rather that everybody has lied a little. If it means one should assume a strange auction, I may show you hand where good players did quite more strange than overcall 1NT with 1/2 stopper and 6322 pattern. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 18:51:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:51:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Attempted defender's concession (was claim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80019D89-64F8-4004-BA10-B6C81A27A049@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be >> superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly >> distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent on >> a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2 >> only to the latter. Although this isn't explicitly stated, >> any other reading would require that both "play continues" >> [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and >> I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that >> tells us how to manage that. > > Richard Hills: > > Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply > since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of > [68B]1 preceding". As the old joke says, "You can't get > there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)." > > 2007 Law 68B2: > > Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede > one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no > concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, > so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play > continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in > these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D > applies to information arising from its exposure and the > information may not be used by the partner of the defender > who has exposed it. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the 1997 version of Law 68B was dreadfully inadequate, > hence the need for the 2001 minute interpreting it. (Eric > and I agree that that 2001 minute should have been better > publicised.) > > The new 2007 Law 68B2 has several useful statements which > did not appear in the 1997 Law 68B: > > "Play continues" > "not a penalty card" > "Law 16D applies" Richard's analysis seems to assume that Grattan's mysterious half- claim-half-concession entity exists not only in the law (a reasonable assumption) but also in the mind of the claimer (not). ISTM that a player's statement along the lines of "I will take two more tricks" is an attempt to claim two more tricks. That attempt to claim gives direct rise to an (actual) claim per L68A. That claim, in turn, given that there is a "remainder", gives direct rise to a concession per L68B1. So we have (a) an attempt to claim, (b) a claim, and (c) a concession. What we do not find here, at least unless the player attempting to claim is knowledgeable and aware of that 2001 leopard- loo minute, is an "attempt" to concede anything. The law says that an attempt to claim may result in a concession, or an attempt to concede may result in a claim, but that does not mean that an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede or vice versa. If I attempt to win a trick with a card I believe to be high, but my opponents play a higher one, my attempt to win the trick has resulted in my losing it, not in my having attempted to lose it. And then there's the simple English. To "object" to a statement is to deny its truth, to disagree with it... East: I will get my two high trumps. West (immediately): I object. TD: You don't think your partner will get his two high trumps? West: No, I'm not objecting to that. TD: So what are you objecting to? West: Partner's concession. TD: What concession? West: The implicit concession he made when he claimed. Law 68B1. Look it up. TD: So you object to his concession, but not to his claim, right? West: No, there's no difference. His claim and his concession are really only one thing, and I object to it. TD: So you *do* object to his claim? West: No, I object to his attempt to concede. TD: What attempt to concede? All he did was claim his high trumps. West: Well, he may have *thought* he was attempting to claim, but he was really attempting to concede. TD: Huh? West: Look, WBFLC Minute #10 from 2001 explains everything. Look it up. Not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 20:48:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to >> get at. > > I don't think I need to repeat my views, though. > >>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. >> >> It does? How? >> >>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red >>> aces". >> >> It is? How? Does one of these indicate that "claimer believes that >> all his cards are high" and other not? Does one of them entitle him >> to a different presumptive line than the other? Is there supposed to >> be some presumptive difference in the proposed line of play based on >> some difference between "last trump" and "spade ten, and by the way >> spades are trumps"? Does one of them obviate the applicability of >> L70D-E and the other not? I just don't get it. > > My point is that if you ask a player how he would play a certain > combination, it does depend on how you express yourself. Both Eric and > Sven regard the "last" trump as a "high" card, whereas I see a > difference between the two - just note that every time this example is > given, trumps are explained as being "all gone", while the other suits > are just plain "high". That is a difference and your saying it's all > the same does not make it thus. > >>> But don't you see that this is exactly why we need a rule? Are >>> you so >>> stubborn to believe that you're idea is the only correct one? Are >>> you >>> not willing to accept one rule or another, for the sake of >>> uniformity? >> >> The only "rule" we need, such as it is, is exactly what Sven has >> said: > > No Eric, I was not saying we need Sven's rule or mine, but just that > we NEED a rule. You keep saying it's obvious from the lawbook, and so > do I, so it's plainly NOT obvious. So we need an interpretation. I > don't really care which one, but don't go saying your interpretation > must be the correct one. > >> A claimer who believes that he can take the rest by running >> all of his suits but has not specified the sequence in which he will >> play them is presumed to play them in the least advantageous order. Perhaps we are suffering from a semantic confusion over the word "rule". We have "Sven-rules", which tell us how to go about adjudicating claims based on "normal" play, and we have "Herman- rules", which define "normal" for the purpose of applying the Sven- rules. At the "Herman-rule" level, the opposite of "trumps played last" is "trumps played first"; at the "Sven-rule" level, the opposite of "trumps played last" is "trumps played when least advantageous". Sven-rules are restatements of the laws, including the footnote; they are "the law". Herman-rules are guidelines for applying the Sven-rules that operate at a level of detail below that given in the laws; they are needed if we want consistency in how we apply the law. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive when they differ, although they may be. We need to keep straight which kind of rules we're talking about before we assume it makes sense to treat some set of them as alternatives. > But he has not stated that! He has said "all are mine". He has not > named any lines, and it is up to us to make a list of all the lines he > could be playing, and then of selecting the least successful one. > > You say he has stated that he can "take the rest by running all his > suits", but that is not what he has said. He has said that his side > suits are high, and no trumps are left. You say that equates to him > "running all suits". I say that it equates to him running side suits > and keeping trumps till last. Nobody says he has said anything but what the previous paragraph says he has said, which, lest we forget, was "all are mine". He has not said "I can take the rest by running all of my suits"; had he, Herman would surely rule as I would. Nor has he said "my side suits are high and no trump are left"; had he, I would assuredly rule as Herman would. We are left to decide which of these is implied by "all are mine". Since neither implication is unreasonable -- either (or both) might be perfectly valid on a given hand -- we can infer either. Sven's view, and mine, is that L70D1 instructs us, when faced with such a choice, to choose the alternative least favorable to the claimer. >> That is really nothing more than a paraphrase of L70D. There is no >> justification for abandoning this principle just because one of his >> "running" suits happens to be trumps. > > Of course there is justification for that. Safety for one. Herman thus asserts that it would not be "normal" for a claimer who thinks he has the rest to overlook a safety play against the possibility that he has miscounted and his claim is invalid. That would be a bit of a stretch even were "normal" here not defined as including the careless or inferior. Moreover, we have a straightforward analogy to L70C. If you claim when there is an outstanding trump but fail to indicate that you are aware that there is a trump out, you do not get to play as though you were aware that there is a trump out. Herman's "trumps last" rule, however, says that if you claim when there are no trumps out but fail to indicate that you are aware that there are no trumps out, you *do* get to play as though you are aware that there are no trumps out. What justifies the difference? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 18 21:04:55 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:04:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be><54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net><47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c841b1$42752750$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines > On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to >>> get at. >> >> I don't think I need to repeat my views, though. >> >>>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. >>> >>> It does? How? >>> >>>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades >>>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red >>>> aces". gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John From schoderb at msn.com Tue Dec 18 21:16:37 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:16:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be><54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net><47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <000b01c841b1$42752750$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: Dear John (always wanted to write a "Dear John" but I'm of the wrong sex) There you go again!!!! Trying to stop the mental anguish that some of our BLML contributors enjoy. It doesn't make a rat's patootie of difference what the subject is, what the words mean, what an intelligent TD would do under given circumstances -- it's just an exercise in posturing and keeping the day from getting away without presenting a worldwide opinion, etc.,etc.,etc. I long since learned that to try to answer Herman and others when they're on a wild goose chase is not only frustrating, it's a waste of time. Your brand of using your head as a TD does not seem to be in vogue. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines > > > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Eric Landau wrote: > >>> I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman is trying to > >>> get at. > >> > >> I don't think I need to repeat my views, though. > >> > >>>> I guess it all depends on the way you express the trump 10. > >>> > >>> It does? How? > >>> > >>>> If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and by the way spades > >>>> are trumps" it's different than if you say "the last trump, and red > >>>> aces". > > gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the head of the > claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. Normal lines? Schmormal > lines, sheesh! John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 22:16:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:16:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712180721n728d5f26ye038eac53dacc0ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <4766C499.8030401@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0712180721n728d5f26ye038eac53dacc0ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:21 AM, richard willey wrote: > On 12/18/07, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes what has >> been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now incorporated into >> TFLB. You are now permitted to psych only if "[your] partner has no >> more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". >> As the ACBL interprets these words, they mean that you may not psych >> if you are aware that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- >> but your opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if >> your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. They mean >> that you may not psych if you have previously -- ever -- perpetrated >> even a vaguely similar psych with your current partner. They mean, >> in the words of Edgar Kaplan, that you have an absolute right to >> psych provided you never actually do it. > > I'm (somewhat) surprised that no one has ever turned this line of > argument upside down. > > Lets assume for the moment that I am playing against a partnership > that never psyches. One might make the argument that is is equally > important that this type of information gets disclosed... ...and it would be a reasonable argument, but not it the topsy-turvy pretzel-logic world of the ACBL, where it is illegal by regulation to have *any agreement whatsoever* relating to psychs. So if you never psych, better not tell your partner, lest you forge an illegal agreement, and better not tell your opponents, lest you confess to having one. The ACBL's policy is, of course, impossible. After you've played with the same partner for long enough for him to have become accustomed to your style, one of two things will have happened: either you will have psyched sometime, manifesting an implicit agreement that you do psych sometimes, or you will not have, manifesting an implicit agreement that you do not psych. Of course, implicit agreements are agreements, subject to the rules governing agreements, so you are in violation whatever you do; if you wish to continue playing competitive bridge legally, you will need a new partner. The only way to satisfy the ACBL rules is to continue to maintain throughout your bridge-playing career that some day you really are going to psych, but then to never actually do so. Of course, when the ACBL says that you may not have any agreement whatsoever with regard to psychs, they really mean you may not have any agreement *except* an agreement never to psych. Well, on second thought, what they really, really mean, is, "Don't psych. If you ever do, we'll find a way to make you sorry." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 22:37:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:37:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <200712181618.IAA13699@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200712181618.IAA13699@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> Welcome to bridge in the 21st century. Herman describes what has >> been ACBL regulation for some time, and is now incorporated into >> TFLB. You are now permitted to psych only if "[your] partner has no >> more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". >> As the ACBL interprets these words, they mean that you may not psych >> if you are aware that your partner has psyched in the past -- ever -- >> but your opponents may not be. They mean that you may not psych if >> your opponents, by agreement and in practice, never psych. > > Eric, I can't see how the wording you quote can be interpreted in a > way that makes the opponents' psyching practices relevant at all. The > phrase has to do with the opponents' awareness of your deviation. I > personally never psych. Well, almost never; my last psych was about > six years ago, although to be fair I should mention that my playing > time has been cut drastically in recent years. But that has nothing > to do with my awareness that other players do sometimes psych. I > can't see how my own psyching practices could possibly put any sort of > restrictions on the opponents', particularly since opponents who don't > know me have no way of knowing how much I psych or don't psych, AND > OBVIOUSLY I DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW AHEAD OF TIME. > > Are you sure the ACBL interprets the quote in the nonsensical way you > described it? Can you cite something they've said? > > (By the way, I'm not disagreeing with any of your post other than this > last particular sentence.) I accept Adam's correction. I got a bit carried away. Opponents' psyching practices don't matter; only their (relative level of) awareness of yours do. But still... There are certainly lots of players in the ACBL who not only never psych, but who, having been repeatedly subjected to the Oakiesque propaganda that continues to appear from time to time in the Bulletin, very much believe that psyching is an antiquated and somewhat shady, if not outrightly unethical, practice -- a residue of what The Bridge World calls "that old black magic" -- in which only marginal players indulge. It has been suggested that psyching violates "active ethics". "Experts don't psych" is an oft-repeated claim in the novice pages. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to argue that such a pair would obviously have "less reason to be aware" of a psych than a member of a partnership that psychs regularly. I doubt that anyone has actually tested this theory, since partnerships that psych regularly don't exist in ACBL-land; sooner or later they are found to have violated something or other and forced to either forego psyching or be drummed from the venue. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 18 23:12:18 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:12:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000601c84194$92a65a40$7ecb403e@Mildred> References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net><003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred><010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> <8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net> <000601c84194$92a65a40$7ecb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <07CE5487-B53D-464B-B0A5-36FF2035290C@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:39 AM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:51 PM, >> wrote: >> >>> From: "Eric Landau" >>> .................................................................... >>> .. >>> +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' >>> and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous >>> and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the >>> other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and >>> I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am >>> right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased >>> to be. >> >> That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 >> law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the >> law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still >> does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was >> intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 >> lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a >> law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six >> years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. >> > +=+ It is my personal view that the principle has not changed > in the 2007 Laws. If this is so, then neither has the interpretation. > If anything has changed it lies in what Richard Hills observed > - viz. > ...................................................................... > ......................... > "Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply > since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of > [68B]1 preceding". As the old joke says, "You can't get > there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)." > > 2007 Law 68B2: > > Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede > one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no > concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, > so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play > continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in > these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D > applies to information arising from its exposure and the > information may not be used by the partner of the defender > who has exposed it." > ...................................................................... > ..................... > Defender has attempted to concede one or more tricks. His > partner has immediately objected. The Director is summoned. > Play continues under the stated conditions. OK, let's see if I get it. We wrote a law in 1997 that misstated its intent; it didn't mean what it said. These things happen. So we issued a minute that restated the law correctly, and then we knew what it meant. So far so good. Then in 2007, we knew what we wanted the law to mean before, and we didn't want to change its meaning, but we decided to keep its misstated (and, patently, potentially misleading, otherwise it would not have been in need of an interpreting minute in the first place) language unchanged, so now it says the same thing that it said but didn't mean in 1997, and still continues not to mean it, and if we want to know what the 2007 law really means, we need the restatement of the 1997 law, which, of course, has the force of an official reinterpretation of a law that postdated it by a decade. Because why wouldn't it? Why would we ever want to get it right, when we can deliberately get it wrong so that we can retroactively re-re-interpret it using a 10-year-old correction of the original language, in secret, and lock it in Richard's leopard-loo? Strikes me as a hell of a way to run a laws commission. Grattan has posted the relevant minute from 2001 to BLML. It echoes L68B in that if a defender tries to concede but his partner immediately objects "no concession has occurred", and then it goes on to add the key words "and by the same token neither has any claim been made". That does not say the same thing as does the original language, but does say, quite clearly, what it means. So who would it have killed to put those additional words in the 2008 lawbook? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Dec 19 01:08:11 2007 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:08:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c841d3$437d5010$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> What's the problem? E/W got a Top. Sure, they missed 6H on a double Club finesse, but who is ever going to bid it? [except a Relay pair perhaps, and then, if either Club is offside, you probably go down.] And S led a Club. Now if it had been something else, like the Q of Spades, then MAYBE he's fielded it. regards, Noel From schoderb at msn.com Wed Dec 19 02:23:36 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:23:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net><003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred><010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred><8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net><000601c84194$92a65a40$7ecb403e@Mildred> <07CE5487-B53D-464B-B0A5-36FF2035290C@starpower.net> Message-ID: Me, for one. Because the 2001 minute is wrong. Landau has given a much clearer interpretation of the extant law at that time. To cancel the claim because the partner objected to the concession is ludicrous, in my not so humble opinion. The misguiding minute gave life to the ridiculous ruling of 8 penalty cards in the famous 3NT ruling. I strongly then, and continue to now, believe that the members of the WBFLC involved did not have a working knowledge of the English language, and were looking at a small part of claims and concessions without understanding what the law was saying. It is my personal opinion that putting claims and concessions into the same basket is a mistake. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:39 AM, wrote: > > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > >> On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:51 PM, > >> wrote: > >> > >>> From: "Eric Landau" > >>> .................................................................... > >>> .. > >>> +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' > >>> and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous > >>> and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the > >>> other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and > >>> I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am > >>> right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased > >>> to be. > >> > >> That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 > >> law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the > >> law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still > >> does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was > >> intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 > >> lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a > >> law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six > >> years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. > >> > > +=+ It is my personal view that the principle has not changed > > in the 2007 Laws. If this is so, then neither has the interpretation. > > If anything has changed it lies in what Richard Hills observed > > - viz. > > ...................................................................... > > ......................... > > "Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply > > since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of > > [68B]1 preceding". As the old joke says, "You can't get > > there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)." > > > > 2007 Law 68B2: > > > > Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede > > one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no > > concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, > > so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play > > continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in > > these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D > > applies to information arising from its exposure and the > > information may not be used by the partner of the defender > > who has exposed it." > > ...................................................................... > > ..................... > > Defender has attempted to concede one or more tricks. His > > partner has immediately objected. The Director is summoned. > > Play continues under the stated conditions. > > OK, let's see if I get it. We wrote a law in 1997 that misstated its > intent; it didn't mean what it said. These things happen. So we > issued a minute that restated the law correctly, and then we knew > what it meant. So far so good. Then in 2007, we knew what we wanted > the law to mean before, and we didn't want to change its meaning, but > we decided to keep its misstated (and, patently, potentially > misleading, otherwise it would not have been in need of an > interpreting minute in the first place) language unchanged, so now it > says the same thing that it said but didn't mean in 1997, and still > continues not to mean it, and if we want to know what the 2007 law > really means, we need the restatement of the 1997 law, which, of > course, has the force of an official reinterpretation of a law that > postdated it by a decade. Because why wouldn't it? Why would we > ever want to get it right, when we can deliberately get it wrong so > that we can retroactively re-re-interpret it using a 10-year-old > correction of the original language, in secret, and lock it in > Richard's leopard-loo? > > Strikes me as a hell of a way to run a laws commission. > > Grattan has posted the relevant minute from 2001 to BLML. It echoes > L68B in that if a defender tries to concede but his partner > immediately objects "no concession has occurred", and then it goes on > to add the key words "and by the same token neither has any claim > been made". That does not say the same thing as does the original > language, but does say, quite clearly, what it means. So who would > it have killed to put those additional words in the 2008 lawbook? > > > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 02:33:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:33:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <018EDD3F-4157-4E1B-A1DD-AC32DF02DDD5@starpower.net> <003f01c8403a$2cfdf1e0$20d0403e@Mildred> <010d01c84108$d864d610$34c9403e@Mildred> <8DB78AF3-190A-481B-A895-8E126B22ECD2@starpower.net> <000601c84194$92a65a40$7ecb403e@Mildred> <07CE5487-B53D-464B-B0A5-36FF2035290C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712181733o721ce11fw4597c33e58da99f@mail.gmail.com> Kojak: > Me, for one. Because the 2001 minute is wrong. Landau has given a much > clearer interpretation of the extant law at that time. To cancel the claim > because the partner objected to the concession is ludicrous, in my not so > humble opinion. The misguiding minute gave life to the ridiculous ruling of > 8 penalty cards in the famous 3NT ruling. I strongly then, and continue to > now, believe that the members of the WBFLC involved did not have a working > knowledge of the English language, and were looking at a small part of > claims and concessions without understanding what the law was saying. It is > my personal opinion that putting claims and concessions into the same basket > is a mistake. > How interesting. When you direct, do you abide by that misguided minute? Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 19 04:38:49 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <200712181534.lBIFYaN1026407@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712181534.lBIFYaN1026407@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47689249.3070604@nhcc.net> > From: > +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder' > and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous > and inseparable. Synchronous is obvious, but I don't see what makes the two inseparable. It would have been easy to write a different Law, cancelling the concession but leaving the claim standing for the TD to rule. (That's what I thought the 1997 text actually required, though the WBFLC took a different view.) The procedure in 2008 seems clear from the new L68B2: "Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it." This is straightforward in principle, though the UI aspect may in practice be difficult to rule because LAs depend on the entire prior play as well as defensive carding agreements. I would not expect the previous "minute" to be applicable, it being superseded by the new Laws text (which happens to have the same effect). From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 19 04:53:42 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:53:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> [revised diagram] >>> None >>> None >>> None >>> 432 >>>6 84 >>>None None >>>None None >>>AK Q >>> 75 >>> 3 >>> None >>> None >>> >>>South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more >>>trumps out and both my spades are good". > From: "Sven Pran" > [make the diagram as above] and you see the importance of Law 70: > "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card..." I don't see how the quoted provision applies. It doesn't matter which opponent holds any particular card. Personally, I am quite happy with the effect of "played top-down" both in this diagram and in the original one. > This is a perfect example to show why we must be very careful in defining > "normal lines of play". It is a perfect example for the necessity of either good guidelines or acceptance of different rulings from different TDs. From: "David Burn" > [claimer] > will complain having been ruled against [saying] > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? Claimer can be told "If it was important, you should have mentioned it in your claim statement." If you meant to ask about claimer's opponents, they still get two tricks in the diagram above (trump, then S-7), unless there's a "trumps last" protocol in effect. If there is, or if the diagram is changed to one where top-down is good for claimer (say delete H-3 from declarer and a club honor from each defender), they can be told "Declarer got lucky this time," just as we would say if defenders own a forgotten trump but can't win a trick with it on any normal play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 19 05:17:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:17:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c84190$760f4f30$7ecb403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >> From: "David Burn" >> Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: >> >> None >> None >> None >> 432 >> 8 64 >> None None >> None None >> AK Q >> 75 >> 3 >> None >> None >> >> South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and >> both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? > > [DALB] > > Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, since > he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, only one by > playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my spades are good", he > will complain having been ruled against according to the de Wael protocol, > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? > [Grattan] +=+ Hmmm... rhetorical question..... ""always subject to any other requirement of this law" (70E2. Now, how does this sit with 70D1? +=+ [RJH] Yes, if I was TD I would join Grattan and Sven in ruling under Law 70D1 that the trump trey was played first, making South's spade pips irrelevant. One trick to North-South, two tricks to East-West. Note that while Regulating Authorities have been given powers under Law 70E2 to modify the claim Laws _for a single suit_, they have zero power to amend the rest of the claim Laws. Hence Herman De Wael's laundry list quest for Regulating Authorities to restrict the scope of Law 70D1 is ultra vires. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 19 05:30:05 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:30:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712182030i6114e5f8t2606ca8360c30567@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills: > > Anyway, with an unmentioned line of play one has to draw > the line somewhere. > > K2 > QJ T9 > A3 > > If a player is capable of not crashing the ace and king > together, is he not also capable of mentioning it? > > ;-) No one expects mentioning how to play your example. The laws require mentioning trump. The laws could be clearer, but it is reasonable to assume that since trumps should mentioned in the statement, maybe squeezes and finesses should be too. > > Since few claims succeed on all legal plays of all the > remaining cards, the word "normal" and the phrase "class > of player" are necessary evils. > Non sequitur. The premise "few claims succeed on all legal plays" is inadequate to conclude that the phrase "class of player" is a necessary evil. It seems to me adequate to conclude that something like "normal" needs to be there, but not class of player. If Mrs. Guggenheim makes the same plays and uses the same claim statement as Geir Helgemo, your premise provides zero evidence that they should receive different scores. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 06:04:32 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712182104lbbb3d5bj7848985d9f872019@mail.gmail.com> [Ed Reppert:] Well, I would have to do some research to answer that (I'm not in the EBU). But what I was really speaking to was "we tell them (Oh, nicely, of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player." I can't believe that *any* NBO would be so foolish. [Jerry Fusselman:] Yes, neither can I. That's my point. I was thinking of a reductio ad absurdum. Please permit me to summarize what is at issue here. Only a few BLMLers are disputing the notion that assuming top-down cashing is a worthwhile principle for settling contested claims under the new laws. Richard is one dissenter, perhaps the only clear dissenter, and he backs his position by citing EBU White Book, clause 70.5. "However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six." How Richard uses this to justify his disagreement with the assumption of top-down cashing for contested claims under the new laws is currently beyond me, because clause 70.5 refers to a law, no longer in effect, that uses the term "irrational." (But maybe he can explain it.) [Eric Landau:] The reference to "class of player" has not, contrary to rumor, been removed from TFLB. It appears in the 2008 laws exactly as it did in the 1997 laws. Only the words "but not irrational" have been removed. [Jerry Fusselman] I asked Richard to clarify whether the EBU clause depends on class of player or something else. He has not yet responded. If it is something else, I want to know what that is. If it is class of player, I, like you, find it absurd. The phrase of mine that you quoted is an attempt to show absurd it is. But neither Richard nor anyone else has explained whether clause 70.5 (which he he uses to support his position) was based on class of player. I hope I have clarified it for you, Ed. Everything below here is from the original thread: Jerry Fusselman === context from past posts === [Jerry Fusselman] Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does anyone dispute this principle? [Richard Hills:] The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle. EBU White Book, clause 70.5: A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. [Jerry Fusselman] Is the EBU's position based on "the class of player involved?" I guess I am asking for speculation in this question, for they may not have said one way or another. So the EBU recommends telling a claimant something to the effect that because you did not specifically mention top-down you lose some easy tricks in your single-suit claim: That is, we tell them (Oh, nicely, of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player. Do I have it essentially right? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 09:10:48 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:10:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> References: <200712171736.lBHHauqZ026316@cfa.harvard.edu> <47673F55.2000607@nhcc.net> <001c01c8416d$cc037b00$640a7100$@com> Message-ID: On 18/12/2007, David Burn wrote: > [SW] > > > From: "David Burn" > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > None > > None > > None > > 432 > > 8 64 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q > > 75 > > 3 > > None > > None > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? > > [DALB] > > Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view, since > he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first, only one by > playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my spades are good", he > will complain having been ruled against according to the de Wael protocol, > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? I don't care if spades are singleton 6 vs 84 or 8 vs 64 with opps here. Declarer only gets his trump trick because when believing all his cards are high it's perfectly rational to cash the trump first (btw, it's perfectly rational to play the spades in any order from declarers point of view if they're both high). > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 09:20:53 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:20:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712182104lbbb3d5bj7848985d9f872019@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712182104lbbb3d5bj7848985d9f872019@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19/12/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Ed Reppert:] > > Well, I would have to do some research to answer that (I'm not in the > EBU). But what I was really speaking to was "we tell them (Oh, nicely, > of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high > here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player." I can't > believe that *any* NBO would be so foolish. > > [Jerry Fusselman:] > > Yes, neither can I. That's my point. I was thinking of a reductio ad > absurdum. Please permit me to summarize what is at issue here. > > Only a few BLMLers are disputing the notion that assuming top-down > cashing is a worthwhile principle for settling contested claims under > the new laws. Richard is one dissenter, perhaps the only clear > dissenter, and he backs his position by citing EBU White Book, clause > 70.5. "However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless > rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six." If it's obvious that opps still holds cards in the suit to be cashed, top-down cashing is clear. However, when it's clear that claimer believes there are no outstanding cards in a suit, all his cards are effectively of equal rank. I agree top-down cashing is "normal" in this case, but I disagree that cashing in a random order is abnormal and obviously not irrational. To make a correct ruling you need to get under claimers skin (or into his brain). And consider the play preceeding the claim. If a declarer holding 9 combined trumps missing the jack plays the trump ace and claims when both follow or one show out and the jack can be finessed, surely I won't rule declarer to give away any trump trick. And so on. Each case have to be ruled indivisually. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > How Richard uses this to justify his disagreement with the assumption > of top-down cashing for contested claims under the new laws is > currently beyond me, because clause 70.5 refers to a law, no longer in > effect, that uses the term "irrational." (But maybe he can explain > it.) > > [Eric Landau:] > > The reference to "class of player" has not, contrary to rumor, been > removed from TFLB. It appears in the 2008 laws exactly as it did in > the 1997 laws. Only the words "but not irrational" have been removed. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > I asked Richard to clarify whether the EBU clause depends on class of > player or something else. He has not yet responded. If it is > something else, I want to know what that is. If it is class of > player, I, like you, find it absurd. The phrase of mine that you > quoted is an attempt to show absurd it is. But neither Richard nor > anyone else has explained whether clause 70.5 (which he he uses to > support his position) was based on class of player. > > I hope I have clarified it for you, Ed. Everything below here is from > the original thread: > > Jerry Fusselman > > > > > === context from past posts === > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me. Does anyone dispute > this principle? > > [Richard Hills:] > > The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle. > > EBU White Book, clause 70.5: > > A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally > assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is > some solidity. However, each individual case should be > considered. > Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 > opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be > normal to give him three tricks since it might be > considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with > 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than > irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > Is the EBU's position based on "the class of player involved?" I > guess I am asking for speculation in this question, for they may not > have said one way or another. > > So the EBU recommends telling a claimant something to the effect that > because you did not specifically mention top-down you lose some easy > tricks in your single-suit claim: That is, we tell them (Oh, nicely, > of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high > here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player. Do I have it > essentially right? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 10:59:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:59:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c84225$d4bd5460$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 19. desember 2007 04:54 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > > [revised diagram] > >>> None > >>> None > >>> None > >>> 432 > >>>6 84 > >>>None None > >>>None None > >>>AK Q > >>> 75 > >>> 3 > >>> None > >>> None > >>> > >>>South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more > >>>trumps out and both my spades are good". > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > [make the diagram as above] and you see the importance of Law 70: > > "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play > the > > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > > with a particular card..." > > I don't see how the quoted provision applies. It doesn't matter which > opponent holds any particular card. Personally, I am quite happy with > the effect of "played top-down" both in this diagram and in the original > one. > > > This is a perfect example to show why we must be very careful in > defining > > "normal lines of play". > > It is a perfect example for the necessity of either good guidelines or > acceptance of different rulings from different TDs. > > From: "David Burn" > > [claimer] > > will complain having been ruled against [saying] > > "why shouldn't I lead either of them first?" Why indeed? > > Claimer can be told "If it was important, you should have mentioned it > in your claim statement." > > If you meant to ask about claimer's opponents, they still get two tricks > in the diagram above (trump, then S-7), unless there's a "trumps last" > protocol in effect. If there is, or if the diagram is changed to one > where top-down is good for claimer (say delete H-3 from declarer and a > club honor from each defender), they can be told "Declarer got lucky > this time," just as we would say if defenders own a forgotten trump but > can't win a trick with it on any normal play. With the S8 stiff the claimer must first play his S5 to get two tricks, with the S6 stiff he must first play his S7. So his "successful" line of play is indeed dependent upon how he places the spades with opponents. Law 70 dictates the Director in such cases to rule as if he misplaces some cards and in this case the claimer shall only have trick for his trump, not for any of his spades. This illustrates that even an apparently logical rule of always playing a suit top-down unless otherwise specified can be in conflict with Law 70. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 19 14:02:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:02:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4769167C.7040905@skynet.be> Very fine post Eric, it merits two responses. Permit me to split them: Eric Landau wrote: >> >> You say he has stated that he can "take the rest by running all his >> suits", but that is not what he has said. He has said that his side >> suits are high, and no trumps are left. You say that equates to him >> "running all suits". I say that it equates to him running side suits >> and keeping trumps till last. > > Nobody says he has said anything but what the previous paragraph says > he has said, which, lest we forget, was "all are mine". He has not > said "I can take the rest by running all of my suits"; had he, Herman > would surely rule as I would. Nor has he said "my side suits are > high and no trump are left"; had he, I would assuredly rule as Herman > would. Very fine analysis. Indeed, if he indicates all 4 suits are "high", playing either of them first should count as normal. And similarly, if he indicates 3 suits are high, and the fourth is trumps, then playing one of the three first is normal. I think everyone can agree to that. > We are left to decide which of these is implied by "all are > mine". Since neither implication is unreasonable -- either (or both) > might be perfectly valid on a given hand -- we can infer either. > Sven's view, and mine, is that L70D1 instructs us, when faced with > such a choice, to choose the alternative least favorable to the claimer. > And I modestly disagree. This is not a case of choosing between lines, but one of choosing between alternatives. The TD has to decide which of the two alternatives he believes (and if he is still in doubt, then he can rule benefit of the doubt to non-claimer). In reality, he should ask the player "did you intend to play trumps last or cash them as any other suit?". He should then listen to the answer and decide whether he shall believe it, or treat it as self-serving (of course claimer will say he's keeping trumps till last). The problem now is that it is very difficult to disprove, or even cast doubt on the saying of claimer. In all other cases, we can ask why he did not play it out a trick longer (as in drawing the last trump), or mention it. In the case of keeping trumps till last, the only way to show that intention would be to play it all out, and to say "I am running three good suits and keeping trumps till last" seems a bit far-fetched. Claimer will be very unhappy when you dismiss his "of course I keep trumps till last, that's normal, isn't it?". That is why I believe it would be good to simply accept the practice of keeping trumps till last as normal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 19 14:05:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:05:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47691704.7030604@skynet.be> Second answer to Eric's post: Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman thus asserts that it would not be "normal" for a claimer who > thinks he has the rest to overlook a safety play against the > possibility that he has miscounted and his claim is invalid. That > would be a bit of a stretch even were "normal" here not defined as > including the careless or inferior. Moreover, we have a > straightforward analogy to L70C. If you claim when there is an > outstanding trump but fail to indicate that you are aware that there > is a trump out, you do not get to play as though you were aware that > there is a trump out. Herman's "trumps last" rule, however, says > that if you claim when there are no trumps out but fail to indicate > that you are aware that there are no trumps out, you *do* get to play > as though you are aware that there are no trumps out. What justifies > the difference? > I think the difference is justified by the fact that it's easy to play, or state the one safety (drawing one extra round of trumps), while it is impossible to play the other safety (keeping trumps till last) and unworkable to mention it (because it is deemed normal by some). > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 19 14:07:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be><54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net><47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <000b01c841b1$42752750$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <476917AB.5020306@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Dear John (always wanted to write a "Dear John" but I'm of the wrong sex) > > There you go again!!!! Trying to stop the mental anguish that some of our > BLML contributors enjoy. It doesn't make a rat's patootie of difference > what the subject is, what the words mean, what an intelligent TD would do > under given circumstances -- it's just an exercise in posturing and keeping > the day from getting away without presenting a worldwide opinion, > etc.,etc.,etc. I long since learned that to try to answer Herman and others > when they're on a wild goose chase is not only frustrating, it's a waste of > time. Your brand of using your head as a TD does not seem to be in vogue. > > Kojak > There you go again Kojak. Everything is so easy for you! Sven and I are both serious directors, who would like to think they are using their head. We have a difference of opinion, and it's a tough one. So please don't talk about using your head. If the solution is that simple, then why don't you tell us what it is? You might just have enough clout left to shut one of us up. But shouting that we should use or head does not bring anything to the discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 14:27:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:27:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c8419c$ebc94940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8419c$ebc94940$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> That just doesn't fly. The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997 >> law. That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the >> law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still >> does is self-contradictory and absurd. If the 2001 minute was >> intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008 >> lawbook? Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a >> law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six >> years before the law was? That's pure insane-asylum stuff. > > Frankly I have a strong feeling that it is your logic which is flawed: > > Law 68A defines the term "claim". > Law 68B defines the term "concession" and adds a tie between these > two terms > to the effect that they together concern exactly all the remaining > tricks to > be played. > > When either a claim or a concession has been made every single > remaining > trick is either claimed or conceded but not both. That's one way to look at it. The other way is to say, we've got this pile of tricks, which were claimed, and that pile of tricks, which were conceded. We may not want to treat them as two separate things, but there's nothing in TFLB (old or new) that precludes us from doing so. > Law 68B2 further establishes the rule that if a concession by a > defender is > immediately objected to by his partner then no concession has > occurred, and > from the above then neither has any claim occurred. This means that > both the > attempted concession and the associated claim are nullified and > that play > continues (with certain specified restrictions). It does, because we've been told that it does. But you wouldn't know it just from reading the text. Note that the law does not refer to a "concession", but rather to an "attempt[] to concede". One could easily argue that a concession spawned by an attempt to claim, per L68B1, is different from an attempt to concede. > Effectively this has been the incorporation of the related WBF > minute from > 2001 into the laws, a result with which I for one have absolutely no > problem. I do not have a problem with the substance. I do have a problem with the fact that the WBF has apparently "incorpoirated" it into the new law by telepathic reference, instead of in the words of the text. The 2001 minute clarified the WBF's interpretation of the law in six words ("neither has any claim been made"). I "have a problem" with those six words not appearing in the new lawbook. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 19 14:33:23 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:33:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> [Steve Willner] Claimer can be told "If it was important, you should have mentioned it in your claim statement." If you meant to ask about claimer's opponents, they still get two tricks in the diagram above (trump, then S-7), unless there's a "trumps last" protocol in effect. If there is, or if the diagram is changed to one where top-down is good for claimer (say delete H-3 from declarer and a club honor from each defender), they can be told "Declarer got lucky this time," just as we would say if defenders own a forgotten trump but can't win a trick with it on any normal play. [nige1] Sometimes, claims are incomplete. If claim law were clearer (for example, if TFLB specified play norms) then claims would be quicker and the director would need to be involved less often. Kojak and Maddog may agree on how to rule. That is of no practical use to less skilled telepaths. There have been many such claim cases on BLML and a concensus ruling is rarely reached. Players rightly regard inconsistent rulings as unfair. Most face-to-face games are played in Bridge-clubs. Sometimes claims are incomplete, which renders less effective the club policy to encourage claims to save hassle and speed up the game. Especially, under current rules that insist that the playing director must always decide what the claimer intended and what is normal play. It is even worse if the law needs clarification and correction by obscure minutes, of which few club-directors are aware. Also, it doesn't seem to occur to the WBFLC that ordinary players may want to be able to understand the rules of the game that they play. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 19 14:36:33 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:36:33 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 18/12/2007 17:37:41 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: Do you really intend to mean that the knowledge of vulnerability, which makes it about 20/1 that partner is the joker, is unauthorized understanding ? [paul lamford] I can never recall seeing a favourable vulnerability 1C psyche as dealer, especially with six spades. It seems that is has virtually nothing to gain, taking up no space, getting partner off to the wrong lead etc etc. A hopeless bridge effort. I would agree that it is about 20/1 that partner is the joker. Perhaps you meant 1/20; or maybe odds are back to front in Belgium. Or maybe players psyche 1C 20 times as often as they psyche 1NT overcalls in Belgium. Now, a 1NT overcall might well be tried on a hand that would pass Stayman or pass a transfer to one's shortage. Dangerous at red, but certainly you should have a long-suit to run to if partner bids 3NT. But the opponent has not run. He just passed 3NT. Why on earth would he want to go off in 100s if he has a long diamond suit? I totally abhor the ACBL's stance on psyches by the way. And their views are contrary to those of the WBF. Psyches are part of the game, and I have no problem with someone psyching on every hand as long as it is not frivolous. Indeed I have been described as an "inveterate warper" by Mr Burn, so I am certainly not anti-psyches. But I do agree with the principle that actions have to be normal until the psyche is clearly exposed. The principle of the psyche being just as much a surprise to partner as to the opponent is one with which I concur. Here, you have guessed partner has psyched even though 1C is an unlikely psyche (in my experience and indeed a trawl through all of Brian Senior's World Championship books showed that it was never psyched in any of the hands in there). How have you guessed that? Because you trust the vulnerable opponents more than partner. You have used your measure of your trust in the opponents and your measure of your trust in partner to decide who has psyched. And rather than admit to that, you make up some spurious hand to explain why you did not double; one where about 10% of players would make each chosen bid, combined odds of 999-1 (or maybe 1-999 in Belgium). Someone said E-W got a top anyway - assuming it was Butler they wouldn't have gained much, as 12 tricks in hearts are normal. But the rules are clear; if the psyche is classified as red, because failing to double 3NT is regarded as abnormal, there is an adjusted score. I am sure there would be in the US. And there should be elsewhere. And I have consulted; the majority I ask think someone has psyched but the psycher is not exposed yet. In fact they were quite surprised it was the 1C bidder. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 14:40:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:40:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <476806C5.4090703@ulb.ac.be> References: <476806C5.4090703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0ACECD55-51D7-4AC9-B656-4E436357FC84@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : >> In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:35:30 GMT Standard Time, >> adam at irvine.com >> writes: >> >> And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT >> is risky and may gain little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?). >> >> [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number >> of cards >> in each suit, where the auction was from another world. >> > But anyway the auction was from a world where there are 46 points in a > deck. And in that case, tha right way to react to avoid fielding isn't > to presume som?body has psyched, but rather that everybody has lied a > little. If it means one should assume a strange auction, I may show > you > hand where good players did quite more strange than overcall 1NT with > 1/2 stopper and 6322 pattern. The "right" way to handle this situation *from the perspective of the game of bridge* isn't to assume anything. There are three possibilities on this auction: (1) partner psyched, (2) an opponent psyched, or (3) "everybody has lied a little". In such situations, the correct strategy usually is to choose the action that caters to the uncertainty by hedging the outcome against any of the three possibilities, recognizing that that might be a different action from any that might have been optimal had one known which was the case. Acting on the assumption that partner psyched is not the same thing as taking an action that accounts for the possibility that partner may have psyched -- indeed, they usually will not produce the same action. The former is fielding; the latter is just sensible bridge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 15:00:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:00:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <567AE47A-F005-4B1C-92FA-459AFCF25ED1@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Note that while Regulating Authorities have been given powers under > Law > 70E2 > to modify the claim Laws _for a single suit_, they have zero power > to amend > the rest of the claim Laws. Hence Herman De Wael's laundry list > quest for > Regulating Authorities to restrict the scope of Law 70D1 is ultra > vires. Since everything in the claims laws depends on what "normal" is, an RA can effectively make pretty much whatever rules they want to just by "interpreting" the footnote to L70-71, without contradicting a single word in TFLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 19 15:04:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:04:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712182104lbbb3d5bj7848985d9f872019@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712182104lbbb3d5bj7848985d9f872019@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:04 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I hope I have clarified it for you, Ed. Why do I feel like I'm being treated as if I were an idiot? :-( I understood you, Jerry. The laws do not say "we tell the player we're ruling against him because he can't play bridge", they say "we tell the player we're ruling against him because while it would be *careless* to play this way, it's certainly *possible*, and we are required to give the benefit of the doubt to his opponent." The rest you can mark down to blml's love of argument for its own sake. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 15:10:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:10:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712182030i6114e5f8t2606ca8360c30567@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712182030i6114e5f8t2606ca8360c30567@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Richard Hills: >> >> Anyway, with an unmentioned line of play one has to draw >> the line somewhere. >> >> K2 >> QJ T9 >> A3 >> >> If a player is capable of not crashing the ace and king >> together, is he not also capable of mentioning it? > > No one expects mentioning how to play your example. The laws require > mentioning trump. The laws could be clearer, but it is reasonable to > assume that since trumps should mentioned in the statement, maybe > squeezes and finesses should be too. Finesses must be: L70E. I doubt that the lawmakers ever contemplated the possibility of anyone considering missing a squeeze "not normal", given the footnote. >> Since few claims succeed on all legal plays of all the >> remaining cards, the word "normal" and the phrase "class >> of player" are necessary evils. > > Non sequitur. The premise "few claims succeed on all legal plays" is > inadequate to conclude that the phrase "class of player" is a > necessary evil. It seems to me adequate to conclude that something > like "normal" needs to be there, but not class of player. It was, in TF1997LB: "but not irrational". It was removed for 2008. The consequences of that removal have yet to hit the fan. > If Mrs. > Guggenheim makes the same plays and uses the same claim statement as > Geir Helgemo, your premise provides zero evidence that they should > receive different scores. Grattan has reported that the intent of the authors of TF2008LB was that they should not. IMO, that is clearly what the language in TF2008LB says. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 19 15:12:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Sometimes, claims are incomplete. If claim law were clearer (for > example, if TFLB specified play norms) then claims would be quicker > and the director would need to be involved less often. My lawyer has an entire wall full of books of laws. Not to mention a "law library" in a separate room. You seem to want directors (and players) to have to deal with the same (ridiculous, imo) volume of crap. I say no, and Hell no. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 16:30:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:30:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <4769167C.7040905@skynet.be> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <4769167C.7040905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <02DC20D6-F72D-4CEC-980D-FFBE9DB5ABF6@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> You say he has stated that he can "take the rest by running all his >>> suits", but that is not what he has said. He has said that his side >>> suits are high, and no trumps are left. You say that equates to him >>> "running all suits". I say that it equates to him running side suits >>> and keeping trumps till last. >> >> Nobody says he has said anything but what the previous paragraph says >> he has said, which, lest we forget, was "all are mine". He has not >> said "I can take the rest by running all of my suits"; had he, Herman >> would surely rule as I would. Nor has he said "my side suits are >> high and no trump are left"; had he, I would assuredly rule as Herman >> would. > > Very fine analysis. Indeed, if he indicates all 4 suits are "high", > playing either of them first should count as normal. And similarly, if > he indicates 3 suits are high, and the fourth is trumps, then playing > one of the three first is normal. I think everyone can agree to that. > >> We are left to decide which of these is implied by "all are >> mine". Since neither implication is unreasonable -- either (or both) >> might be perfectly valid on a given hand -- we can infer either. >> Sven's view, and mine, is that L70D1 instructs us, when faced with >> such a choice, to choose the alternative least favorable to the >> claimer. > > And I modestly disagree. This is not a case of choosing between lines, > but one of choosing between alternatives. The TD has to decide which > of the two alternatives he believes (and if he is still in doubt, then > he can rule benefit of the doubt to non-claimer). In reality, he > should ask the player "did you intend to play trumps last or cash them > as any other suit?". He should then listen to the answer and decide > whether he shall believe it, or treat it as self-serving (of course > claimer will say he's keeping trumps till last). > > The problem now is that it is very difficult to disprove, or even cast > doubt on the saying of claimer. In all other cases, we can ask why he > did not play it out a trick longer (as in drawing the last trump), or > mention it. In the case of keeping trumps till last, the only way to > show that intention would be to play it all out, and to say "I am > running three good suits and keeping trumps till last" seems a bit > far-fetched. Claimer will be very unhappy when you dismiss his "of > course I keep trumps till last, that's normal, isn't it?". I suspect this is another case of the recently revealed trans- Atlantic difference in our attitude toward claims. An experienced American player would not be very unhappy; he would accept such a ruling as routine. An American TD would gently point out to him that saying "cashing my side suits" or "all good, trumps last" takes no more effort than "I get the rest of the tricks". > That is why I believe it would be good to simply accept the practice > of keeping trumps till last as normal. My view is that keeping trumps for last is "dictionary-normal"; it's what *careful* players do routinely. But accepting the practice violates the footnote, which tells us that carelessness does not imply "abnormality". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 16:37:22 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:37:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <47691704.7030604@skynet.be> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <47691704.7030604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0481C755-B895-45BF-A114-BB987283A5B4@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Herman thus asserts that it would not be "normal" for a claimer who >> thinks he has the rest to overlook a safety play against the >> possibility that he has miscounted and his claim is invalid. That >> would be a bit of a stretch even were "normal" here not defined as >> including the careless or inferior. Moreover, we have a >> straightforward analogy to L70C. If you claim when there is an >> outstanding trump but fail to indicate that you are aware that there >> is a trump out, you do not get to play as though you were aware that >> there is a trump out. Herman's "trumps last" rule, however, says >> that if you claim when there are no trumps out but fail to indicate >> that you are aware that there are no trumps out, you *do* get to play >> as though you are aware that there are no trumps out. What justifies >> the difference? > > I think the difference is justified by the fact that it's easy to > play, or state the one safety (drawing one extra round of trumps), > while it is impossible to play the other safety (keeping trumps till > last) and unworkable to mention it (because it is deemed normal by > some). I don't understand how a claimer's uttering the words "trumps last" when claiming could be thought to be "impossible" or "unworkable". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 16:42:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:42:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c84255$b9ab6510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > It does, because we've been told that it does. But you wouldn't know > it just from reading the text. Sure I do. Reading the text is precisely how I know. > Note that the law does not refer to a "concession", but rather to an > "attempt[] to concede". One could easily argue that a concession > spawned by an attempt to claim, per L68B1, is different from an > attempt to concede. Please explain how the difference can be relevant. To me a statement like "one trick to each of us" made by a defender to declarer is an attempt, in this case both to claim one trick and to concede the other. If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to concede the rest. The attempt becomes a claim respectively a concession unless his partner immediately objects. When declarer concedes it is no "attempt" simply because he has no partner that may object to the concession. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 16:48:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:48:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ................. > The laws do not say "we tell the player we're ruling against him > because he can't play bridge", they say "we tell the player we're > ruling against him because while it would be *careless* to play this > way, it's certainly *possible*, and we are required to give the > benefit of the doubt to his opponent." Bravo! Regards Sven From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 16:55:53 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:55:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <20071219105553.3871de08@linuxbox> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:08 -0500 Ed Reppert wrote: > > My lawyer has an entire wall full of books of laws. Not to mention a > "law library" in a separate room. You seem to want directors (and > players) to have to deal with the same (ridiculous, imo) volume of > crap. I say no, and Hell no. > Well, I'll support Nigel in one thing that he said (which Ed didn't quote). It may be all very well for the likes of Kojak and MadDog to "get inside the head" of the players, but once in a while, *someone* needs to remember the poor sod who has had his arm twisted into taking his turn as playing director of the weekly duplicate at the village bridge club. Last I knew about it, such people have to use the same FLB as Kojak. Yes, I think providing such people (I include myself, if our local club ever resurrects itself) with a cookbook-style approach to settling disputed claims/concessions would be very useful, even if it meant a small increase in the "volume of crap". Call them rules, laws, regulations, appendices, semi-offical cheat sheets, unofficial guidance from expert TDs, whatever, the name doesn't matter. The one thing I *do* know for sure is that it certainly decreases the subsequent grumbling from the players if you can point to a piece of paper that backs up your decision, rather than claim some kind of semi-telepathic abilities. Brian. -- From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 17:14:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:14:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c84255$b9ab6510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c84255$b9ab6510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............. >> It does, because we've been told that it does. But you wouldn't know >> it just from reading the text. > > Sure I do. Reading the text is precisely how I know. > >> Note that the law does not refer to a "concession", but rather to an >> "attempt[] to concede". One could easily argue that a concession >> spawned by an attempt to claim, per L68B1, is different from an >> attempt to concede. > > Please explain how the difference can be relevant. > > To me a statement like "one trick to each of us" made by a defender to > declarer is an attempt, in this case both to claim one trick and to > concede > the other. True. > If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one > trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to > concede the > rest. False. The difference is that in the first case the concession occurred because he has made "a statement to the effect that [he] will lose a specific number of tricks". In the second case the concession occurred because he has made "a claim of some number of tricks". If the latter language did not appear in TFLB, we would have a concession in the first case only, but not in the second. > The attempt becomes a claim respectively a concession unless his > partner > immediately objects. The attempt to claim produces the claim. The claim, respectively, produces the concession. No "attempt to concede" there -- we do not know the claimer's mental state, and have no reason to presume that he has internalized the ramifications of L68B (or is even aware of it). > When declarer concedes it is no "attempt" simply because he has no > partner > that may object to the concession. It's awfully hard to concede without "attempting" to do so. Declarer's attempt to concede always produces a concession because he has no partner who may object to his *attempt to concede*. That's not the same as objecting to the "concession". Indeed, L68B says that if a defender's partner objects to the *attempt*, "no concession has occured", and thus can hardly be objected to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Dec 19 17:21:33 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:21:33 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 19/12/2007 13:41:06 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: There are three possibilities on this auction: (1) partner psyched, (2) an opponent psyched, or (3) "everybody has lied a little". [paul lamford] In England the third of these is classed as a "deviation", and it can still be classified as red if it is fielded. For example partner opens 1NT (11-14) on a 10 count, and you decide not to invite on a balanced 12 count. I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. But there is a school of thought that it should not. From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 18:28:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:28:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c84264$87d8bbf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com .............. > I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the > possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. > But there is a school of thought that it should not. May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his action should by all means be allowed. But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is disgraceful. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 18:39:33 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c84266$1e8ccae0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ........... > > If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one > > trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to > > concede the rest. > > False. >From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > > The difference is that in the first case the concession occurred > because he has made "a statement to the effect that [he] will lose a > specific number of tricks". In the second case the concession > occurred because he has made "a claim of some number of tricks". If > the latter language did not appear in TFLB, we would have a > concession in the first case only, but not in the second. The difference is immaterial. We do have a concession in both cases. Sven From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 19 20:00:47 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:00:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <47696A5F.9020200@nhcc.net> From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=" > To make a correct ruling you need to get under claimers skin (or into > his brain). I really, really, REALLY hope this is not true! You may have to look at the order of play, and you certainly have to consider the claim statement (if any) and understand what it meant in context, but I don't see why there should be any need for mind reading. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 19 20:04:50 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:04:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines Message-ID: <47696B52.6010608@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > With the S8 stiff the claimer must first play his S5 to get two tricks, with > the S6 stiff he must first play his S7. So his "successful" line of play is > indeed dependent upon how he places the spades with opponents. "How he places the cards" is not synonymous with "finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card." From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 20:36:24 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:36:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > ................. > > The laws do not say "we tell the player we're ruling against him > > because he can't play bridge", they say "we tell the player we're > > ruling against him because while it would be *careless* to play this > > way, it's certainly *possible*, and we are required to give the > > benefit of the doubt to his opponent." > > Bravo! > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. Maybe I need to rephrase the question more concretely: On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all three tricks to declarer. Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did he rule differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A. Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A. My question from the start was whether the EBU's example allowing 754 to sometimes capture the lone outstanding 6 and sometimes not is based on the class of player. My primary interest was not how lovely a clause-70.5-following director's language is when he tells a declarer that this time, top-down is not assumed. Assume the style is as lovely as you like. I am more interested in the substance of why he might adjudicate, this time, that 754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6. Is it because of "class of player"? If not, was it is based on? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 19 20:46:56 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:46:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. Maybe I > need to rephrase the question more concretely: > > On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims > with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last > remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU > White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all three tricks > to declarer. > > Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same > play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X > rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did he rule > differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven > are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A. > Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A. So do I. You have postulated an incomplete case. Given the facts as you present them here, I see no reason why this director should issue two different rulings. From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 19 21:46:49 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:46:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: <000201c841d3$437d5010$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <001201c84280$499110b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > What's the problem? > > E/W got a Top. Sure, they missed 6H on a double Club finesse, but who is > ever going to bid it? [except a Relay pair perhaps, and then, if either > Club > is offside, you probably go down.] > > And S led a Club. Now if it had been something else, like the Q of > Spades, > then MAYBE he's fielded it. > > regards, > Noel Thank the Lord for a voice of reason. John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 19 21:53:50 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:53:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines References: <47696A5F.9020200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003301c84281$43f197a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=" > > To make a correct ruling you need to get under claimers skin (or into > > his brain). > > I really, really, REALLY hope this is not true! It's what you should do, even so. The law is clear " ... primary purpose ... restore equity ... " and equity is restored only if you find out WHY claimer claimed. Now if the claimant hesitates and stutters then he has no idea what's going on and if tells me how the play went and what the position is then the restoration of equity is not served by making some daft "Normal lines" ruling. Why don't you just do your job; find out what's going on and if in doubt rule one way and if not rule the other. I just don't understand why it's difficult. and i don't see how else we can do our jobs either. John > > You may have to look at the order of play, and you certainly have to > consider the claim statement (if any) and understand what it meant in > context, but I don't see why there should be any need for mind reading. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 19 21:55:55 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:55:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu><476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com><902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> <20071219105553.3871de08@linuxbox> Message-ID: <003a01c84281$8c61c050$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:08 -0500 > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> My lawyer has an entire wall full of books of laws. Not to mention a >> "law library" in a separate room. You seem to want directors (and >> players) to have to deal with the same (ridiculous, imo) volume of >> crap. I say no, and Hell no. >> > > Well, I'll support Nigel in one thing that he said (which Ed didn't > quote). It may be all very well for the likes of Kojak and MadDog to > "get inside the head" of the players, but once in a while, *someone* > needs to remember the poor sod who has had his arm twisted into taking > his turn as playing director of the weekly duplicate at the village > bridge club. Last I knew about it, such people have to use the same FLB > as Kojak. and it's fine for them to be in doubt and rule against. wtfp? > > Yes, I think providing such people (I include myself, if our local > club ever resurrects itself) with a cookbook-style approach to settling > disputed claims/concessions would be very useful, even if it meant a > small increase in the "volume of crap". Call them rules, laws, > regulations, appendices, semi-offical cheat sheets, unofficial guidance > from expert TDs, whatever, the name doesn't matter. I'd have no problem with this approach either. cheers John > > The one thing I *do* know for sure is that it certainly decreases the > subsequent grumbling from the players if you can point to a piece of > paper that backs up your decision, rather than claim some kind of > semi-telepathic abilities. > > > Brian. > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 19 22:00:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:00:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000c01c84282$45f58880$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ................ > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. Maybe I > need to rephrase the question more concretely: > > On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims > with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last > remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU > White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all three tricks > to declarer. > > Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same > play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X > rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did he rule > differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven > are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A. > Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A. I do not know EBU White Book clause 70.5 (and I don't think that I'm much interested as I am short of time for what I consider my important tasks). Given that the above are complete and accurate descriptions of the cases Director X made in my honest opinion an incorrect ruling. So Mr. B has all my sympathy and would have won an appeal had I had a decisive vote. When the total number of outstanding cards in a suit does not exceed the number of high cards the claimer holds in that same suit I shall always rule that the claimer plays this suit top-down, there is no logical reason for playing otherwise. (In this case there is only one outstanding spade and the claimer holds the highest remaining spade). Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:01 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:03:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu><476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <004901c84282$8a5cd320$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > [Steve Willner] > Claimer can be told "If it was important, you should have mentioned it > in your claim statement." If you meant to ask about claimer's > opponents, they still get two tricks in the diagram above (trump, then > S-7), unless there's a "trumps last" protocol in effect. If there is, > or if the diagram is changed to one where top-down is good for claimer > (say delete H-3 from declarer and a club honor from each defender), > they can be told "Declarer got lucky this time," just as we would say > if defenders own a forgotten trump but can't win a trick with it on > any normal play. > > [nige1] > > Sometimes, claims are incomplete. If claim law were clearer (for > example, if TFLB specified play norms) then claims would be quicker > and the director would need to be involved less often. Nigel, I have no problem with this approach, but it's not what the Law currently says > > Kojak and Maddog may agree on how to rule. We don't often disagree, and Kojak is one of the few TDs where I'll leave London in order to play in his game. He's quite lazy with his rulings too, but by God he gets them right in terms of "How do we play bridge?". ... and "How do we play bridge" does mean within the scope of TFLB and its prologues. We're not telepaths, we just ask a few questions to find out what's going on. I play in his games because what is played in his games is Contract Bridge. cheers John From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 22:07:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:07:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712191307l6be857f7r97ab1a4d693420d9@mail.gmail.com> Ed Reppert: > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. Maybe I > > need to rephrase the question more concretely: > > > > On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims > > with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last > > remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU > > White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all three tricks > > to declarer. > > > > Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same > > play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X > > rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did he rule > > differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven > > are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A. > > Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A. > > So do I. You have postulated an incomplete case. Given the facts as > you present them here, I see no reason why this director should issue > two different rulings. > My guess is that it might be because of class of player. Richard has not yet said. Richard has stated that sometimes he agrees that the stiff 6 should be deemed to win over the 754 that were claimed good. Richard has not said why he thinks so, other than to quote EBU clause 70.5. Ed and Sven, I appreciate your attempts to follow my argument and explain things to me. I think we are now communicating, and we have achieved much agreement. I am beginning to think clause 70.5 is dead anyway, due to its use of the word "irrational," which has been removed from contested-claims parts of the 2008 laws. But I am still curious why anyone would want to sometimes rule that a 754 loses to a stiff 6. Richard? Anyone? Dave Burn's example does not help, because ruling top-down works perfectly: [Dave Burn] > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > None > None > None > 432 > 8 64 > None None > None None > AK Q > 75 > 3 > None > None > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? [Steve Wilner] Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer an example where it works badly? As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will result in random rulings. [Jerry Fusselman] BLML seems now close to a consensus that top-down (within a suit) is a fine principle. The only remaining voices against it I can recall are three: (1) EBU White Book, clause 70.5, now probably dead; (2) Richard Hills agreement a week ago with the example in clause 70.5, as I have described above, but he has not clarified why and no one else has agreed; (3) Dave Burn's example above, while interesting, does not show any problem with assuming top-down. I.e., you get everyone's preferred answer of 1 trick to South by assuming top-down: Trump first, because it is the least-advantageous suit order to do what he intended to do---cash his "winners." He might play trump first at the table to induce an opponent to make a discarding mistake just in case his assumption that he had all winners in the side suits was incorrect. I.e., trumps first is a normal option for this claim statement. Steve's paraphrase of Eric's point makes me wonder: Does someone care not one bit how random our rulings are? Possibly Dave Burn can come up with another example, perhaps similar to his last, where the top-down assumption gives declarer too much. He might give us something like this: 3 None None 32 K 2 None None None None AK Q2 AQJ None None None With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good." If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would assume that South with this statement will play his cards top down. I don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here. The top-down assumption means that one area of claims law is taken care of with one simple assumption. It seems wise, because it is easier to remember and leads to fewer random rulings. I see no trouble with equity in this approach, because equity does not require that forgetting an outstanding card always costs at least one trick. If the four spade honors were changed to 7, 6, 5, and 4, I would hope everyone would rule the same, even though these cards give South and West the holding that clause 70.5 says can be random or discretionary. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 22:09:55 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:09:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <000901c84264$87d8bbf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000901c84264$87d8bbf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <468472B9-067A-473A-8B03-C371122A2407@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > .............. >> I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the >> possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. >> But there is a school of thought that it should not. > > May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the > possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his > action > should by all means be allowed. > > But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the > possibility > that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a player who > "fields > partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is disgraceful. Exactly right, and well put. This is what I was trying to say when I suggested to Stefanie that "you are not permitted to guess that partner has psyched" does *not* mean that "you are obliged to guess that partner has not psyched". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 19 22:48:24 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:48:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines ad nauseum Message-ID: <476991A8.9040701@aol.com> This is surely going to be a very minority opinion. Why not demand that claims be made properly and completely (with statement of further play)? If that is not done, then, if a line of play is not obvious (or if it makes no difference) in short if there is any element of doubt, then rule "against" (the most unfavourable (for him) line that is not illogical) him; he should have claimed properly. We'd save a lot of time and space if we concentrated on having players claim properly (with statement of play and less on what to do if they don't. (In such cases the problem can be solved by a capable TD.) (Excuse me for agreeing with Kojak.) Would it be so difficult to emphasize that claims should be made properly? Postscriptum: Please don't advance arguments that the discussion is being held for the benefit of inexperienced (weak was the term used I think) TDs or that thr element of doubt is decisive. If there is no doubt about the line of play there is no problem; if there is doubt (what claimant knew or how he intended to play) then he should have stated it. The TD must decide what he believes to be probable and base his decision on it. But, who am I to quibble? I am obviously simpleminded to take such a position. JE From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 19 23:01:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:01:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000a01c84266$1e8ccae0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c84266$1e8ccae0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <596D9084-5DE3-412D-B27B-1F4E5D3D8E67@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ........... >>> If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one >>> trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to >>> concede the rest. >> >> False. > > From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of > the > remainder, if any." That in no way implies that an attempt to claim some number of tricks is an attempt to concede the remainder. If I attempt to cross the street and there is a giant puddle in my way I will cross the street and get my feet wet. That does not mean that I was attempting to get my feet wet. As I see it, a player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he] will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A] is attempting to claim. A player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he] will lose a specific number of tricks" [L68B1] is attempting to concede. A player attempting to claim who is not conversant with the details of L68 will not even understand that his attempt to claim will, by law, result in a concession, so how can we maintain that he is attempting to bring about that concession? >> The difference is that in the first case the concession occurred >> because he has made "a statement to the effect that [he] will lose a >> specific number of tricks". In the second case the concession >> occurred because he has made "a claim of some number of tricks". If >> the latter language did not appear in TFLB, we would have a >> concession in the first case only, but not in the second. > > The difference is immaterial. We do have a concession in both cases. There are two issues here, and the difference is material to both of them. (1) It matters, when "his partner immediately objects" [L68B2], what the implied object of "objects" is. If he is presumed to be "objecting" to his partner's *attempt to concede* then the second case contains nothing for him to object to. If he is presumed to be objecting to his partner's *concession*, then he may object in either case, and we go on to (2). The wording of L68B2 strongly suggests the former reading: If you object to partner's *attempt to concede* then "no concession has occurred" -- OK, no problem. But if you object to partner's "concession" and then "no concession has occurred", then nothing has occurred for you to object to, so you couldn't have objected to it, and the world goes 'round and 'round. (2) If the concession resulted from an attempt to concede, we have (duh!) a concession. If it resulted from an attempt to claim, we have a claim *and* a (consequent) concession. Under one reading of the law (i.e. as written), if partner objects the concession is voided in both cases leaving nothing in the first and a claim still to be dealt with in the second. Under the alternative (and, according to Grattan, intended) reading of the law (i.e. assuming the 2001 minute modifying the 1997 law applies), if partner objects the concession is voided in the first case, while in the second case a "synchronous and inseparable" claim-and-concession entity is voided, leaving nothing to be dealt with in either. But if the "'synchronous and inseparable' claim-and-concession entity" really exists, why would "a claim of some number of tricks [be] a concession of the remainder" [L68B1] when there is nothing making a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the remainder? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 19 23:14:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:14:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071219105553.3871de08@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >Yes, I think providing such people (I include myself, if our local >club ever resurrects itself) with a cookbook-style approach to >settling disputed claims/concessions would be very useful, even if >it meant a small increase in the "volume of crap". Call them >rules, laws, regulations, appendices, semi-official cheat sheets, >unofficial guidance from expert TDs, whatever, the name doesn't >matter. Richard Hills: In the early 1980s Edgar Kaplan wrote an excellent article in The Bridge World about disputed claims (later collected in an Appeals Committee booklet), with indicative examples. Perhaps a posthumous collaborator could make minor revisions to Edgar's work so that it is relevant to 2008? Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 20 00:05:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:05:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>The laws do not say "we tell the player we're ruling >>against him because he can't play bridge", they say >>"we tell the player we're ruling against him because >>while it would be *careless* to play this way, it's >>certainly *possible*, and we are required to give the >>benefit of the doubt to his opponent." >> >>The rest you can mark down to blml's love of argument >>for its own sake. Jerry Fusselman: >My original question about clause 70.5 is still >unanswered. [snip] >754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6. Is it because >of "class of player"? If not, was it is based on? Richard Hills: My best guess is that it is based on the principle that it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is to be "careless" with high honours. Some years ago David Stevenson, editor of the EBU White Book, was a member of blml, and a previous iteration of the "top-down is only normal line" was being discussed on the list. I belong to the expert "class of player", and I related my own past carelessness with low pips as a counter-example. It seems that David Stevenson was convinced by my low pips counter-example to top-down, as he incorporated that into the White Book's clause 70.5. Note that the EBU will not adopt the new Lawbook until August 1st (to be confirmed), so that White Book clause 70.5 will remain valid in England until then. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 00:11:57 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:11:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <003a01c84281$8c61c050$0701a8c0@john> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> <20071219105553.3871de08@linuxbox> <003a01c84281$8c61c050$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <20071219181157.27a270eb@linuxbox> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:55:55 -0000 "John Probst" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > > > > > Well, I'll support Nigel in one thing that he said (which Ed didn't > > quote). It may be all very well for the likes of Kojak and MadDog to > > "get inside the head" of the players, but once in a while, *someone* > > needs to remember the poor sod who has had his arm twisted into > > taking his turn as playing director of the weekly duplicate at the > > village bridge club. Last I knew about it, such people have to use > > the same FLB as Kojak. > > and it's fine for them to be in doubt and rule against. wtfp? TFP, John, is that some people, although W-A-Y behind the likes of you in terms of knowledge and experience as a TD, still like to do their damndest to take the job seriously and rule correctly, and the "in doubt (and don't know how to sort it out) so rule against" approach seems deeply unsatisfactory, to say the least. > > > > Yes, I think providing such people (I include myself, if our local > > club ever resurrects itself) with a cookbook-style approach to > > settling disputed claims/concessions would be very useful, even if > > it meant a small increase in the "volume of crap". Call them rules, > > laws, regulations, appendices, semi-offical cheat sheets, > > unofficial guidance from expert TDs, whatever, the name doesn't > > matter. > > I'd have no problem with this approach either. I'm sure *you* wouldn't. But the folks who sit on the WBFLC, who've apparently decided that the language of TFLB is clear enough to need no explanation, are the problem. I just think they sometimes forget where, and how, the *majority* of this (offline) game is played. Maybe TFLB *is* absolutely crystal clear to all of them, but they're crazy if they think it's the same at the lower levels of the game. Brian. -- From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 20 00:19:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:19:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines ad nauseum In-Reply-To: <476991A8.9040701@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01c84295$9f173e00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > This is surely going to be a very minority opinion. Why not demand that > claims be made properly and completely (with statement of further play)? > If that is not done, then, if a line of play is not obvious (or if it > makes no difference) in short if there is any element of doubt, then > rule "against" (the most unfavourable (for him) line that is not > illogical) him; he should have claimed properly. But that is exactly how Law 70 instructs us to rule ! ! ! The problem arises with tiring discussions on what is illogical. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 20 00:28:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:28:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <596D9084-5DE3-412D-B27B-1F4E5D3D8E67@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c84296$d5798e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................. > > From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession > > of the remainder, if any." > > That in no way implies that an attempt to claim some number of tricks > is an attempt to concede the remainder. Please, please. Come on and be sensible. If with five tricks left to play I end the play by showing my cards and say: "I get two tricks", isn't that both a claim of two tricks and simultaneously a concession of the other three? I have nothing more to add to this discussion, if you want to consider yourself a "winner" then be my guest. Sven From richard.hills at IMMI.GOV.AU Thu Dec 20 02:00:20 2007 From: richard.hills at IMMI.GOV.AU (richard.hills at IMMI.GOV.AU) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:00:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <567AE47A-F005-4B1C-92FA-459AFCF25ED1@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Extract from "Memo to Regulating Authorities" Also please note that the following Laws extend options that Regulating Authorities may wish to consider: 12C, 16B2, 18F, 20F, 20G, 40A1, 40B1, 40B2, 40B3, 41A, 45A, 61B, 70E2, 73A2, 76A2, 76C, 78D, 79C, 80A, 80B, 81C8, 86A, 91B, 92B, 93C1, 93C2, 93C3. Eric Landau: >Since everything in the claims laws depends on what >"normal" is, an RA can effectively make pretty much >whatever rules they want to just by "interpreting" the >footnote to L70-71, without contradicting a single >word in TFLB. Richard Hills: Regulating Authorities have many powers, but one power that they have been denied by the WBF LC is the power to say that "black" equals "white". If a word or phrase in the 2007 Lawbook is not defined by the 2007 Lawbook, then the WBF Laws Committee has ruled that the dictionary definition applies. So a Regulating Authority may not reverse the dictionary meaning of Law 70-71 footnote's "careless" into the De Wael-suggested "careful" (to draw trumps then save remaining trumps for last). Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 20 02:43:12 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:43:12 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712191743q61e66e4fscfecd79a96b4baf4@mail.gmail.com> > Jerry Fusselman: > > >My original question about clause 70.5 is still > >unanswered. > > [snip] > > >754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6. Is it because > >of "class of player"? If not, was it is based on? > > Richard Hills: > > My best guess is that it is based on the principle that > it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is > to be "careless" with high honours. > > Some years ago David Stevenson, editor of the EBU White > Book, was a member of blml, and a previous iteration of > the "top-down is only normal line" was being discussed > on the list. I belong to the expert "class of player", > and I related my own past carelessness with low pips as > a counter-example. Thanks so much for attempting to clarify what is behind clause 70.5. There are no doubt examples of errors of almost every kind. Even A2 opposite K3 can take zero tricks on lead in no trump if the mistake of playing the 2 with the 3 occurs on the first round and an opponent's 4 wins the trick. We are not particularly interested in the grossest of blunders that have ever occured at the table. Yes, showing off the way Richard mentioned earlier will sometimes lead to a pointless loss of tricks, but I doubt the lawmakers want us to rule contested claims based on whether or not some huge blunder has *ever* occurred, proving that it might again. And even if not yet recorded, the hugest blunders still have postive probability of occurring in all classes of players. The claims laws are not designed to guarantee that no declarer will ever benefit from claiming over playing it out. They are designed to help us speed up the game without giving either side too much too often. One of the lessons of the Coase Theorem is that there is a large benefit to having clear laws (property rights in this case) that are well understood, even if not they are not perfect. Both sides can assume the claim laws are part of the game and recognize that sometimes they are declaring and other times defending. But it is important to have those laws be clear and understood and easy to enforce with low randomness of outcomes. Top-down can serve admirably in this way. > > It seems that David Stevenson was convinced by my low > pips counter-example to top-down, as he incorporated > that into the White Book's clause 70.5. > [EBU White Book, clause 70.5:] --------------- A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. ------------ But I do not think that > the principle that > it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is > to be "careless" with high honours explains how the director should choose between top-down in one case and not the other. What criteria should one use to determine if top-down is in effect or not? Here is what 70.5 tells us: "Each individual case should be considered." OK, let us consider one individual case: "Declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone." The guideline waffles even here, in its own chosen first example. It says that the lead of the 5 "might be considered irrational"---just *might* be. "It would be normal to give him three tricks," but this use of normal is not about normal lines of play but about normal rulings, and a normal ruling still leaves room for the abnormal in some cases. Clause 70.5 tells us nothing about what it would take to rule other than top-down. In both examples, clause 70.5 gives, the director is free to rule either way. Therefore, I don't see any principles or guidelines on when to rule top-down in clause 70.5. It is just nutty. Top-down seems so much better to me. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Dec 20 04:44:21 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:44:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert system In-Reply-To: <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> <902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4769E515.9080107@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] My lawyer has an entire wall full of books of laws. Not to mention a "law library" in a separate room. You seem to want directors (and players) to have to deal with the same (ridiculous, imo) volume of crap. I say no, and Hell no. [nige1] I would like to see unnecessary laws removed and the rest simplified. I agree that current claim law is over-complex. Sven and I have suggested different drastic simplifications. Given the current malaise, however, Herman's norms would be a welcome addition. They would speed up claims and eliminate many disputes. When a ruling was still necessary, it would be seen to be more just. Paradoxically, I concede that Ed is right - if the law-book were simplified and completed, it would be bigger. It is harder to write clear simple laws that players can understand than the ambiguous sophisticated ones that directors seem to prefer. Laval Du Breuil clarified the laws with flow-charts for Directors to consult. Such decision trees could also form the basis for an expert-system for use by those clubs and sponsors who have access to a PC. Then it would not matter too much if the database was large. You could just answer a few questions to find laws (and often a ruling) appropriate to a particular set of circumstances. I would also like the laws to be as objective as possible, but in the end, many decisions hinge on subjective judgement. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 20 04:30:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:30:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47671B4A.5090006@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >As an aside, I don't understand why the new rules restrict the >replacement call to non-jump bids nor why redoubles are >excluded. If one of these would have "incorporated" the >information, why not allow it? Richard Hills: Perhaps Steve's "don't understand" is due to Steve not recently playing against bunnies? At the Canberra Bridge Club on Tuesday and Thursday nights I play against other experts, but for my Wednesday night game at the South Canberra Bridge Club the field is weaker. If an insufficient bidder was permitted to change their IB to a redouble, a non-offending opponent from South Canberra could well get confused and concede -1120 defending 1Sxx. Likewise, a jump rebid replacement for an IB could confuse a non- offending South Canberra opponent into overbidding for a -800 penalty. Why be too generous to the offending side when designing a Law? Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From paul.vdm at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 08:49:45 2007 From: paul.vdm at skynet.be (Paul) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:49:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <468472B9-067A-473A-8B03-C371122A2407@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6g7uo2$1ncf15@relay.skynet.be> The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to psyches seems ambiguous to me. North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this player will not be considered a psyche". So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. Why only the next one ? There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous (so far only) confrontation. Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and asked him to respect the existing rules. I got upset because : - North was deliberately breaking these rules - psyching with this hand is merely provocative - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better players) taking into account N's psyche. On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to psyche almost as often as you like. Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Eric Landau Verzonden: woensdag 19 december 2007 22:10 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > .............. >> I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the >> possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. >> But there is a school of thought that it should not. > > May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the > possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his > action should by all means be allowed. > > But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the > possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a > player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is > disgraceful. Exactly right, and well put. This is what I was trying to say when I suggested to Stefanie that "you are not permitted to guess that partner has psyched" does *not* mean that "you are obliged to guess that partner has not psyched". 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date: 18/12/2007 21:40 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 09:14:16 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712191307l6be857f7r97ab1a4d693420d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712191307l6be857f7r97ab1a4d693420d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19/12/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. Maybe I > > > need to rephrase the question more concretely: > > > > > > On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims > > > with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last > > > remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU > > > White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all three tricks > > > to declarer. > > > > > > Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same > > > play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X > > > rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did he rule > > > differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven > > > are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A. > > > Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A. > > > > So do I. You have postulated an incomplete case. Given the facts as > > you present them here, I see no reason why this director should issue > > two different rulings. > > > > My guess is that it might be because of class of player. Richard has > not yet said. Richard has stated that sometimes he agrees that the > stiff 6 should be deemed to win over the 754 that were claimed good. > Richard has not said why he thinks so, other than to quote EBU clause > 70.5. > > Ed and Sven, I appreciate your attempts to follow my argument and > explain things to me. I think we are now communicating, and we have > achieved much agreement. > > I am beginning to think clause 70.5 is dead anyway, due to its use of > the word "irrational," which has been removed from contested-claims > parts of the 2008 laws. But I am still curious why anyone would want > to sometimes rule that a 754 loses to a stiff 6. Richard? Anyone? > > Dave Burn's example does not help, because ruling top-down works perfectly: > > [Dave Burn] > > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > None > > None > > None > > 432 > > 8 64 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q > > 75 > > 3 > > None > > None > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps out and > > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > [Steve Wilner] > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone offer > an example where it works badly? > > As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will > result in random rulings. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > BLML seems now close to a consensus that top-down (within a suit) is a > fine principle. The only remaining voices against it I can recall are > three: (1) EBU White Book, clause 70.5, now probably dead; (2) > Richard Hills agreement a week ago with the example in clause 70.5, as > I have described above, but he has not clarified why and no one else > has agreed; (3) Dave Burn's example above, while interesting, does > not show any problem with assuming top-down. I.e., you get everyone's > preferred answer of 1 trick to South by assuming top-down: Trump > first, because it is the least-advantageous suit order to do what he > intended to do---cash his "winners." He might play trump first at the > table to induce an opponent to make a discarding mistake just in case > his assumption that he had all winners in the side suits was > incorrect. I.e., trumps first is a normal option for this claim > statement. > > Steve's paraphrase of Eric's point makes me wonder: Does someone care > not one bit how random our rulings are? > > Possibly Dave Burn can come up with another example, perhaps similar > to his last, where the top-down assumption gives declarer too much. > He might give us something like this: > > 3 > None > None > 32 > K 2 > None None > None None > AK Q2 > AQJ > None > None > None > > With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good." > > If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would > assume that South with this statement will play his cards top down. I > don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here. This most definitely is wrong. Unless declarer can prove that he knows that spades are divided 1-1, he should be ruled to finesse - losing all 3 tricks unless spades are trumps. L70E:"The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > The top-down assumption means that one area of claims law is taken > care of with one simple assumption. It seems wise, because it is > easier to remember and leads to fewer random rulings. I see no > trouble with equity in this approach, because equity does not require > that forgetting an outstanding card always costs at least one trick. > > If the four spade honors were changed to 7, 6, 5, and 4, I would hope > everyone would rule the same, even though these cards give South and > West the holding that clause 70.5 says can be random or discretionary. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 09:43:41 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <596D9084-5DE3-412D-B27B-1F4E5D3D8E67@starpower.net> References: <000a01c84266$1e8ccae0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <596D9084-5DE3-412D-B27B-1F4E5D3D8E67@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 19/12/2007, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > ........... > >>> If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one > >>> trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to > >>> concede the rest. > >> > >> False. > > > > From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of > > the > > remainder, if any." > > That in no way implies that an attempt to claim some number of tricks > is an attempt to concede the remainder. > > If I attempt to cross the street and there is a giant puddle in my > way I will cross the street and get my feet wet. That does not mean > that I was attempting to get my feet wet. > > As I see it, a player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he] > will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A] is attempting to claim. > A player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he] will lose a > specific number of tricks" [L68B1] is attempting to concede. A > player attempting to claim who is not conversant with the details of > L68 will not even understand that his attempt to claim will, by law, > result in a concession, so how can we maintain that he is attempting > to bring about that concession? > > >> The difference is that in the first case the concession occurred > >> because he has made "a statement to the effect that [he] will lose a > >> specific number of tricks". In the second case the concession > >> occurred because he has made "a claim of some number of tricks". If > >> the latter language did not appear in TFLB, we would have a > >> concession in the first case only, but not in the second. > > > > The difference is immaterial. We do have a concession in both cases. > > There are two issues here, and the difference is material to both of > them. > > (1) It matters, when "his partner immediately objects" [L68B2], what > the implied object of "objects" is. If he is presumed to be > "objecting" to his partner's *attempt to concede* then the second > case contains nothing for him to object to. If he is presumed to be > objecting to his partner's *concession*, then he may object in either > case, and we go on to (2). The wording of L68B2 strongly suggests > the former reading: If you object to partner's *attempt to concede* > then "no concession has occurred" -- OK, no problem. But if you > object to partner's "concession" and then "no concession has > occurred", then nothing has occurred for you to object to, so you > couldn't have objected to it, and the world goes 'round and 'round. > > (2) If the concession resulted from an attempt to concede, we have > (duh!) a concession. If it resulted from an attempt to claim, we > have a claim *and* a (consequent) concession. Under one reading of > the law (i.e. as written), if partner objects the concession is > voided in both cases leaving nothing in the first and a claim still > to be dealt with in the second. Under the alternative (and, > according to Grattan, intended) reading of the law (i.e. assuming the > 2001 minute modifying the 1997 law applies), if partner objects the > concession is voided in the first case, while in the second case a > "synchronous and inseparable" claim-and-concession entity is voided, > leaving nothing to be dealt with in either. > > But if the "'synchronous and inseparable' claim-and-concession > entity" really exists, why would "a claim of some number of tricks > [be] a concession of the remainder" [L68B1] when there is nothing > making a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the > remainder? > Please get real Eric. That a claim is incorporated in a concession and vice versa (of course unless one claims or conecede the rest of the tricks) is an obvious and logical fact. Although the lawmakers have tried to make this extra clear by adding a sentence (unnecessary) to this effect in the law defining a concession, there's no reason to try to twist this around like you do. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 10:06:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:06:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <0481C755-B895-45BF-A114-BB987283A5B4@starpower.net> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <47691704.7030604@skynet.be> <0481C755-B895-45BF-A114-BB987283A5B4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <476A30B2.50700@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> Herman thus asserts that it would not be "normal" for a claimer who >>> thinks he has the rest to overlook a safety play against the >>> possibility that he has miscounted and his claim is invalid. That >>> would be a bit of a stretch even were "normal" here not defined as >>> including the careless or inferior. Moreover, we have a >>> straightforward analogy to L70C. If you claim when there is an >>> outstanding trump but fail to indicate that you are aware that there >>> is a trump out, you do not get to play as though you were aware that >>> there is a trump out. Herman's "trumps last" rule, however, says >>> that if you claim when there are no trumps out but fail to indicate >>> that you are aware that there are no trumps out, you *do* get to play >>> as though you are aware that there are no trumps out. What justifies >>> the difference? >> I think the difference is justified by the fact that it's easy to >> play, or state the one safety (drawing one extra round of trumps), >> while it is impossible to play the other safety (keeping trumps till >> last) and unworkable to mention it (because it is deemed normal by >> some). > > I don't understand how a claimer's uttering the words "trumps last" > when claiming could be thought to be "impossible" or "unworkable". > Because you start from the American idea of "state it or be damned". The Europeans prefer to be ruled on "state it if you want it to be different to normal". The bridge laws clearly provide for things not stated to be understood. If then you, as organiser in Maryland, decide that if something is not stated, it is not understood, then you should make this very clear to your players. Only then can you rule against them if they don't state it. I doubt if you have done this clear stating in this case, but I can assume that you did. But anyway, this has not been made clear to my players in Antwerp. So if I start to rule tomorrow that a claimer will cash trumps first, I will have all hell to pay. And my players will shout very loudly "why should I say trumps last, isn't that F* obviuous?" So you may be right in Maryland, but you would certainly be wrong in Antwerp. And maybe this difference is why the WBF has provided for SOs to be able to formulate rules for normal lines. And maybe they ought to be different between America and Europe. But they certainly don't need to be different between Belgium and the Netherlands or Belgium and France. Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe Norway can then opt to stay out of that. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 10:18:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:18:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <6g7uo2$1ncf15@relay.skynet.be> References: <6g7uo2$1ncf15@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <476A3372.8080708@skynet.be> Hello Paul, Herman here, I have stayed out of this discussion until now. This was the object of an appeal recently, and I was chairman. I hope that some of the issues have been cleared up by our list? Paul wrote: > The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to psyches > seems ambiguous to me. No more ambiguous than those of other NOBs, it would seem to me. Psyches are notoriously difficult. > North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this player > will not be considered a psyche". Who are you citing in this sentence? Not me or the VBL, I'm sure. > So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. You understand wrongly. Repeated psyches will be viewed under all evidence, including the fact that they are repeated. But there is no "once in a lifetime" rule for psyches. > Why only the next one ? I am not of the opinion that only the second psyche will be reviewed. The first one (or at least the first one brought to attention) will be reviewed as well - and the honest evidence of the psycher will be taken into account with regards to previous history. > There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous (so > far only) confrontation. Indeed, he admitted as much. > Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and asked > him to respect the existing rules. But there is no rule that says that he is not allowed to psyche against you again. > I got upset because : > - North was deliberately breaking these rules Rules that do not exist, I repeat. > - psyching with this hand is merely provocative let's not go into that. > - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better players) > taking into account N's psyche. You see that the support for that statement is not unanimous. > On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to psyche > almost as often as you like. > Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? > I would not know, but there is certainly no rule against psyching. Any number of times. Now I will admit that we did not examine the psyche in detail. We were sidetracked by many other issues, sadly. If you had managed to simply report the psyche, we might have gone more deeply into south's actions. I confess not having been thorough enough for that, but I shall not explain the reasons for that to the list. I am happy though that the answers on blml show that there is no clear evidence of fielding, and that our lack of thoroughness has not cost you a (partly) ruling in your favour. Anyway, it was nice to be able to also talk about the core of the case for once, not just about all the side issues. I hope we have learnt something from it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 10:26:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:26:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0712191743q61e66e4fscfecd79a96b4baf4@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0712191743q61e66e4fscfecd79a96b4baf4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <476A3549.4040705@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >>> My original question about clause 70.5 is still >>> unanswered. >> [snip] >> >>> 754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6. Is it because >>> of "class of player"? If not, was it is based on? >> Richard Hills: >> >> My best guess is that it is based on the principle that >> it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is >> to be "careless" with high honours. >> >> Some years ago David Stevenson, editor of the EBU White >> Book, was a member of blml, and a previous iteration of >> the "top-down is only normal line" was being discussed >> on the list. I belong to the expert "class of player", >> and I related my own past carelessness with low pips as >> a counter-example. > > Thanks so much for attempting to clarify what is behind clause 70.5. > > There are no doubt examples of errors of almost every kind. Even A2 > opposite K3 can take zero tricks on lead in no trump if the mistake of > playing the 2 with the 3 occurs on the first round and an opponent's 4 > wins the trick. > > We are not particularly interested in the grossest of blunders that > have ever occured at the table. Yes, showing off the way Richard > mentioned earlier will sometimes lead to a pointless loss of tricks, > but I doubt the lawmakers want us to rule contested claims based on > whether or not some huge blunder has *ever* occurred, proving that it > might again. And even if not yet recorded, the hugest blunders still > have postive probability of occurring in all classes of players. > > The claims laws are not designed to guarantee that no declarer will > ever benefit from claiming over playing it out. They are designed to > help us speed up the game without giving either side too much too > often. One of the lessons of the Coase Theorem is that there is a > large benefit to having clear laws (property rights in this case) that > are well understood, even if not they are not perfect. Both sides can > assume the claim laws are part of the game and recognize that > sometimes they are declaring and other times defending. But it is > important to have those laws be clear and understood and easy to > enforce with low randomness of outcomes. Top-down can serve admirably > in this way. > >> It seems that David Stevenson was convinced by my low >> pips counter-example to top-down, as he incorporated >> that into the White Book's clause 70.5. >> > > [EBU White Book, clause 70.5:] > > --------------- > A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally > assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is > some solidity. However, each individual case should be > considered. > Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 > opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be > normal to give him three tricks since it might be > considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with > 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than > irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. > ------------ > > But I do not think that > >> the principle that >> it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is >> to be "careless" with high honours > > explains how the director should choose between top-down in one case > and not the other. What criteria should one use to determine if > top-down is in effect or not? Here is what 70.5 tells us: "Each > individual case should be considered." OK, let us consider one > individual case: "Declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, > forgetting the jack has not gone." The guideline waffles even here, > in its own chosen first example. It says that the lead of the 5 > "might be considered irrational"---just *might* be. "It would be > normal to give him three tricks," but this use of normal is not about > normal lines of play but about normal rulings, and a normal ruling > still leaves room for the abnormal in some cases. Clause 70.5 tells > us nothing about what it would take to rule other than top-down. In > both examples, clause 70.5 gives, the director is free to rule either > way. > > Therefore, I don't see any principles or guidelines on when to rule > top-down in clause 70.5. It is just nutty. Top-down seems so much > better to me. > I agree that if you are going to issue a regulation, it should be a clear one. The examples above are not clear. There should be better counter-examples given. I suggest that the 754 example might be a good one if it occurs in diamonds and the 7 might want to take the last trick. Other than that, I can see no reasons not to write just "top-down except when there exists a reason". > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 10:30:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:30:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] normal lines ad nauseum In-Reply-To: <476991A8.9040701@aol.com> References: <476991A8.9040701@aol.com> Message-ID: <476A362A.4090600@skynet.be> Easy answer, Jeff: Jeff Easterson wrote: > This is surely going to be a very minority opinion. Why not demand that > claims be made properly and completely (with statement of further play)? > If that is not done, then, if a line of play is not obvious (or if it > makes no difference) in short if there is any element of doubt, then > rule "against" (the most unfavourable (for him) line that is not > illogical) him; he should have claimed properly. You have merely substituted the word "obvious" for "normal". What is obvious and what is not? Is it not obvious that I keep trumps till last? Is it not obvious that I play AK from AK5? Sorry Jeff, but you have not made a contribution! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 20 10:45:36 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476A30B2.50700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c842ed$132a22b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe > Norway can then opt to stay out of that. In Norway we want the players to be responsible and play their own cards, not to lean back and let the Director (or AC) play the cards for them. That, I suppose, is one reason why we do not fancy default rules on how cards are played if the player does not make a statement. And that is also why we rule the player to having selected the most unfavourable (for his side) line of play when several alternatives are reasonably possible. Sven From paul.vdm at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 11:02:08 2007 From: paul.vdm at skynet.be (Paul) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:02:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <476A3372.8080708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6g7uk3$1j07jp@relay.skynet.be> I have been citing the competition director's decision, and now I translate with most care : QUOTE Decision : Art. 40A of the rules is clear : a psychologic bid is allowed, on the condition that such bid is not based on an agreement with partner. The psychologic bid of "player North" is thus allowed. This deviating bid is registered, on repetition of such bids by this pair, the fact will be taken into account that these bids are based on an implicit partnership agreement. UNQUOTE When is player North allowed to psyche again ? Next week ? Next month ? Why register then ? The problem with this rule is that no one ever cares to write down a single psyche, so psychers can go their way, and they know their partner won't jump into deep waters. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: donderdag 20 december 2007 10:19 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings Hello Paul, Herman here, I have stayed out of this discussion until now. This was the object of an appeal recently, and I was chairman. I hope that some of the issues have been cleared up by our list? Paul wrote: > The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to > psyches seems ambiguous to me. No more ambiguous than those of other NOBs, it would seem to me. Psyches are notoriously difficult. > North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this > player will not be considered a psyche". Who are you citing in this sentence? Not me or the VBL, I'm sure. > So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. You understand wrongly. Repeated psyches will be viewed under all evidence, including the fact that they are repeated. But there is no "once in a lifetime" rule for psyches. > Why only the next one ? I am not of the opinion that only the second psyche will be reviewed. The first one (or at least the first one brought to attention) will be reviewed as well - and the honest evidence of the psycher will be taken into account with regards to previous history. > There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous > (so far only) confrontation. Indeed, he admitted as much. > Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and > asked him to respect the existing rules. But there is no rule that says that he is not allowed to psyche against you again. > I got upset because : > - North was deliberately breaking these rules Rules that do not exist, I repeat. > - psyching with this hand is merely provocative let's not go into that. > - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better > players) taking into account N's psyche. You see that the support for that statement is not unanimous. > On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to > psyche almost as often as you like. > Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? > I would not know, but there is certainly no rule against psyching. Any number of times. Now I will admit that we did not examine the psyche in detail. We were sidetracked by many other issues, sadly. If you had managed to simply report the psyche, we might have gone more deeply into south's actions. I confess not having been thorough enough for that, but I shall not explain the reasons for that to the list. I am happy though that the answers on blml show that there is no clear evidence of fielding, and that our lack of thoroughness has not cost you a (partly) ruling in your favour. Anyway, it was nice to be able to also talk about the core of the case for once, not just about all the side issues. I hope we have learnt something from it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 20 12:08:16 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:08:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901c842f8$9eae8820$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Steve Willner: > >>As an aside, I don't understand why the new rules restrict the >>replacement call to non-jump bids nor why redoubles are >>excluded. If one of these would have "incorporated" the >>information, why not allow it? > > Richard Hills: > > Perhaps Steve's "don't understand" is due to Steve not recently > playing against bunnies? > > At the Canberra Bridge Club on Tuesday and Thursday nights I > play against other experts, but for my Wednesday night game at > the South Canberra Bridge Club the field is weaker. > > If an insufficient bidder was permitted to change their IB to a > redouble, a non-offending opponent from South Canberra could > well get confused and concede -1120 defending 1Sxx. Likewise, > a jump rebid replacement for an IB could confuse a non- > offending South Canberra opponent into overbidding for a -800 > penalty. Is South Canberra like Newfy for the canucks, or the Oirish for the English? >From a test for jobbing Irish builders: Q: What is the difference between a joist and a girder? A: "Well, Joist wrote Ulysses, and Girder wrote Faust" Merry Xmas to my fan club and even those I habitually piss off. John From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 20 12:13:41 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: <6g7uo2$1ncf15@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c842f9$60aab7f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to psyches > seems ambiguous to me. > North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this player > will not be considered a psyche". > So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. > Why only the next one ? > There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous (so > far only) confrontation. > Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and asked > him to respect the existing rules. > I got upset because : > - North was deliberately breaking these rules > - psyching with this hand is merely provocative If you did that to me, I'd flay you. You'd get a stribg of psyches from me; and you'd never read any oif them, nor would partner. If you really want to piss me off go down that route. A few players have tried it on; and in retrospect wished they hadn't. I invariably gain a huge number of imps. You'll miss a slam; then get hit for 800 when I sandbag, I have a hell of an armoury I can bring forth when someone annoys me. Your actions were despicably provocative. cheers John > - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better players) > taking into account N's psyche. > On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to psyche > almost as often as you like. > Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > Namens Eric Landau > Verzonden: woensdag 19 december 2007 22:10 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com >> .............. >>> I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the >>> possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. >>> But there is a school of thought that it should not. >> >> May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the >> possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his >> action should by all means be allowed. >> >> But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the >> possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a >> player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is >> disgraceful. > > Exactly right, and well put. This is what I was trying to say when I > suggested to Stefanie that "you are not permitted to guess that partner > has > psyched" does *not* mean that "you are obliged to guess that partner has > not > psyched". > > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date: > 18/12/2007 > 21:40 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: > 19/12/2007 > 19:37 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From paul.vdm at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 12:27:28 2007 From: paul.vdm at skynet.be (Paul) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <002201c842f9$60aab7f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6g7u15$27o9i8@relay.skynet.be> Thank you for exposing clearly the way of thinking of psychers. I disagree with the words "nor would partner". This is what the Bridge Encyclopedia says regarding this issue : "Psychic bids are not soon forgotten by the user's partner. Since such a bid does grossly misstate either the strength or pattern of the hand, or both, the results obtained tend to be memorable where the partner is concerned. In this respect the psychic bid has the same effect as does an extraordinarily good guess by partner, either as declarer or defender, a particularly spectacular line of play or defense, or a sensationally successful or unsuccessful save by partner. "But where the guesses, lines of play and saves are remembered as special cases, the psychic calls tend to become identified with the bidding situation in which they were used. When partner has psyched once, for many sessions to come every time a similar situation arises, his partner will remember and wonder. "The partner who remembers and wonders is apt to test the water before he takes the plunge of an irreversible action predicated upon partner's call. A player who thus displays caution may not be deemed to be simply prudent. His caution stems from prior knowledge and thus constitutes prima facie evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists". -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens John Probst Verzonden: donderdag 20 december 2007 12:14 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to psyches > seems ambiguous to me. > North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this player > will not be considered a psyche". > So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. > Why only the next one ? > There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous (so > far only) confrontation. > Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and asked > him to respect the existing rules. > I got upset because : > - North was deliberately breaking these rules > - psyching with this hand is merely provocative If you did that to me, I'd flay you. You'd get a stribg of psyches from me; and you'd never read any oif them, nor would partner. If you really want to piss me off go down that route. A few players have tried it on; and in retrospect wished they hadn't. I invariably gain a huge number of imps. You'll miss a slam; then get hit for 800 when I sandbag, I have a hell of an armoury I can bring forth when someone annoys me. Your actions were despicably provocative. cheers John > - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better players) > taking into account N's psyche. > On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to psyche > almost as often as you like. > Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > Namens Eric Landau > Verzonden: woensdag 19 december 2007 22:10 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com >> .............. >>> I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the >>> possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. >>> But there is a school of thought that it should not. >> >> May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the >> possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his >> action should by all means be allowed. >> >> But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the >> possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a >> player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is >> disgraceful. > > Exactly right, and well put. This is what I was trying to say when I > suggested to Stefanie that "you are not permitted to guess that partner > has > psyched" does *not* mean that "you are obliged to guess that partner has > not > psyched". > > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date: > 18/12/2007 > 21:40 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: > 19/12/2007 > 19:37 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 20 12:30:30 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:30:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] normal lines References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu><476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com><902AACF0-CC73-45D4-821B-82D836D91118@rochester.rr.com><20071219105553.3871de08@linuxbox><003a01c84281$8c61c050$0701a8c0@john> <20071219181157.27a270eb@linuxbox> Message-ID: <004301c842fb$ba544ad0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:55:55 -0000 > "John Probst" wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brian" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] normal lines >> >> > >> > Well, I'll support Nigel in one thing that he said (which Ed didn't >> > quote). It may be all very well for the likes of Kojak and MadDog to >> > "get inside the head" of the players, but once in a while, *someone* >> > needs to remember the poor sod who has had his arm twisted into >> > taking his turn as playing director of the weekly duplicate at the >> > village bridge club. Last I knew about it, such people have to use >> > the same FLB as Kojak. >> >> and it's fine for them to be in doubt and rule against. wtfp? > > TFP, John, is that some people, although W-A-Y behind the likes of you > in terms of knowledge and experience as a TD, still like to do their > damndest to take the job seriously and rule correctly, and the "in > doubt (and don't know how to sort it out) so rule against" approach > seems deeply unsatisfactory, to say the least. You raise some interesting philosophy. IF the only game in your area is the Chiselhurst Ladies Circle and the TD is the Dowager Lady Featherstonehaugh, then that's the game you play in, and you'll get ruled against; but so will everyone. And the worthy and redoubtable DLF is doing just as good a job as Kojak does in his games. If, like me, you choose to play only in games with top class TDs then your expectation will be that the TD will get somewhat closer to your concept of "How do we play bridge?" and that too is fine. So, while I do see your point, that club games barely scrape over the bar as far as law is concerned does not mean to say that it's not bridge. Perhaps you and I have higher aspirations for the poor sod who's in the firing line. cheers john. > >> > >> > Yes, I think providing such people (I include myself, if our local >> > club ever resurrects itself) with a cookbook-style approach to >> > settling disputed claims/concessions would be very useful, even if >> > it meant a small increase in the "volume of crap". Call them rules, >> > laws, regulations, appendices, semi-offical cheat sheets, >> > unofficial guidance from expert TDs, whatever, the name doesn't >> > matter. >> >> I'd have no problem with this approach either. though it's not what the Law says, but a minute from the WBFLC would make me perfectly happy to turn to page "pig's trotters in brine" or whatever was appropriate in the cookbook. Nice coloured pictures of the player's faces would be a good illustration. > > I'm sure *you* wouldn't. But the folks who sit on the WBFLC, who've > apparently decided that the language of TFLB is clear enough to need no > explanation, are the problem. I just think they sometimes forget where, > and how, the *majority* of this (offline) game is played. Maybe TFLB > *is* absolutely crystal clear to all of them, but they're crazy if they > think it's the same at the lower levels of the game. That is so. Kojak's direction at the Wiesbaden regional is not Kojak's direction at the World Championships, and he does both jobs good. (I should use "well" there but Kojak doesn't speak English - peace Bill) I think a TD needs to be in tune with his players. I try to be; I certainly bend the Law to suit the Chiselhurst Ladies circle as compared with the Young Chelsea. John > > > Brian. > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 20 13:21:32 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:21:32 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 19/12/2007 17:28:32 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his action should by all means be allowed. [paul lamford] OK, I am convinced by the weight of opinion, and concur with a couple of members who suggested that the classification should be amber, and no adjusted score should be made. I strongly favour the view expressed by Sven above, and would welcome it becoming widespread, but I suspect from other comments that it is not, and different jurisdictions would rule very differently. From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 20 14:39:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:39:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c8430d$b59e85c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > In a message dated 19/12/2007 17:28:32 GMT Standard Time, > svenpran at online.no > writes: > > May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for > the possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and > his action should by all means be allowed. > > [paul lamford] OK, I am convinced by the weight of opinion, and > concur with a couple of members who suggested that the classification > should be amber, and no adjusted score should be made. > I strongly favour the view expressed by Sven above, and would welcome > it becoming widespread, but I suspect from other comments that it is > not, and different jurisdictions would rule very differently. I consider it entirely improper to quote only the first part of my suggestion which actually contains two inseparable parts, the second of which is: But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is disgraceful. Sven From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 20 14:50:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:50:45 EST Subject: [blml] Strange biddings Message-ID: In a message dated 20/12/2007 13:39:44 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is disgraceful. I apologise for not also including the above, which I also wholeheartedly agree with. I did not quote it as I have always fully agreed with it, and I thought it was an universally held view. If someone stated that they thought "suicide bombers were justified" but other murders were disgraceful, I would not feel it inappropriate in the slightest to just quote their view that suicide bombers were justified. The inseparability of your second sentence from the first was not evident. Indeed the fact that the two sentences appeared as separate paragraphs with a line between them was an indication to the contrary. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 15:23:13 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> 754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6. Is it because >> of "class of player"? If not, was it is based on? > > Richard Hills: > > My best guess is that it is based on the principle that > it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is > to be "careless" with high honours. > > Some years ago David Stevenson, editor of the EBU White > Book, was a member of blml, and a previous iteration of > the "top-down is only normal line" was being discussed > on the list. I belong to the expert "class of player", > and I related my own past carelessness with low pips as > a counter-example. > > It seems that David Stevenson was convinced by my low > pips counter-example to top-down, as he incorporated > that into the White Book's clause 70.5. It's easy to defend the proposition that "it is easier to be 'careless' with low pips than it is to be 'careless' with high honours". But any "principle" on which we can legitimately base rulings will have to address high pips and low honours as well. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 20 16:31:52 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:31:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: <6g7u15$27o9i8@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c8431d$720f3150$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > Thank you for exposing clearly the way of thinking of psychers. > I disagree with the words "nor would partner". uhuh? My regular partners bend over backwards to 1) punish my psyches 2) inform opponents of proclivities of which they're aware - They are obliged to do both by Law. I'd just wheel out my second string; ones they're not aware of. 30 years of playing the Young Chelsea three times a week exposed me to just about everything one could imagine and more besides. The Law is clear "A player may make any call or play ... " and I quote from Max bavin, WBF CTD "Where in the lawbook does it say you can't psych?" Partner must carefully avoid taking action that might even suggest he is aware I may have psyched "concealed partnership understanding" and must also disclose "fully and freely available" my proclivities. That is what the Law actually says. ... and if you asked me not to psyche and I didn't then you can be certain I despise your bridge, because you would have REALLY annoyed me, and I only don't psych much against clueless players. Psychs are part of the game Paul. Accept that. cheers John. > This is what the Bridge Encyclopedia says regarding this issue : > "Psychic bids are not soon forgotten by the user's partner. Since such a > bid does grossly misstate either the strength or pattern of the hand, or > both, the results obtained tend to be memorable where the partner is > concerned. In this respect the psychic bid has the same effect as does an > extraordinarily good guess by partner, either as declarer or defender, a > particularly spectacular line of play or defense, or a sensationally > successful or unsuccessful save by partner. > "But where the guesses, lines of play and saves are remembered as special > cases, the psychic calls tend to become identified with the bidding > situation in which they were used. When partner has psyched once, for > many > sessions to come every time a similar situation arises, his partner will > remember and wonder. > "The partner who remembers and wonders is apt to test the water before he > takes the plunge of an irreversible action predicated upon partner's call. > A player who thus displays caution may not be deemed to be simply prudent. > His caution stems from prior knowledge and thus constitutes prima facie > evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists". > of course. That's obvious, but it doesn't alter my statemens above. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > Namens John Probst > Verzonden: donderdag 20 december 2007 12:14 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Strange biddings > > >> The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to psyches >> seems ambiguous to me. >> North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this player >> will not be considered a psyche". >> So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. >> Why only the next one ? >> There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a previous >> (so >> far only) confrontation. >> Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and >> asked >> him to respect the existing rules. >> I got upset because : >> - North was deliberately breaking these rules >> - psyching with this hand is merely provocative > > If you did that to me, I'd flay you. You'd get a stribg of psyches from > me; > and you'd never read any oif them, nor would partner. If you really want > to > piss me off go down that route. A few players have tried it on; and in > retrospect wished they hadn't. I invariably gain a huge number of imps. > You'll miss a slam; then get hit for 800 when I sandbag, I have a hell of > an > > armoury I can bring forth when someone annoys me. Your actions were > despicably provocative. cheers John > >> - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better players) >> taking into account N's psyche. >> On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to psyche >> almost as often as you like. >> Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> Namens Eric Landau >> Verzonden: woensdag 19 december 2007 22:10 >> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings >> >> On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com >>> .............. >>>> I would agree that "taking an action that accounts for the >>>> possibility that partner may have psyched" should be allowed. >>>> But there is a school of thought that it should not. >>> >>> May I suggest that a player who takes an action that accounts for the >>> possibility that partner may have psyched is a good player and his >>> action should by all means be allowed. >>> >>> But a player who takes an action that does *not* account for the >>> possibility that partner did *not* psyche is IMO most probably a >>> player who "fields partner's (expected) psyche" and such action is >>> disgraceful. >> >> Exactly right, and well put. This is what I was trying to say when I >> suggested to Stefanie that "you are not permitted to guess that partner >> has >> psyched" does *not* mean that "you are obliged to guess that partner has >> not >> psyched". >> >> >> 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date: >> 18/12/2007 >> 21:40 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: >> 19/12/2007 >> 19:37 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: > 19/12/2007 > 19:37 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: > 19/12/2007 > 19:37 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Dec 20 17:07:51 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 20 Dec 2007 17:07:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity Message-ID: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> Hi gang, I am currently working on tne Polish version of the 2007 Laws and I am having some trouble with L12A1. As the matter of fact I've always had but now that I'm trying to fine tune the translation I thought I might go ahead and, for a change, actually try to understand what I'm talking about. Here it is: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. Webster defines "indemnity" as "security against hurt, loss, or damage". So when exactly can the TD wheel out L12A1? As English is not my first language I'd appreciate an explanation laid out in simple words and, more important, in practical terms. Imagine you are a boxing coach talking to your boxer between rounds. Simple, short, practical terms, please. Keep it simple. L12A1 for dummies. I'd really like to see a specific example when the TD assigns an adjusted score and L12A1 is the basis of the ruling rather than any of the MI laws, or UI laws, or could-have-known laws or whatever. Emphasis on "specific example". An example when we really need L12A1 or else someone would get away with murder. I have never been able to even invent such a case, much less witness one in real life. So please let me overcome my limitation. Best regards, -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szukasz kucharskiej inspiracji na swieta? Wejdz na >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbb From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 20 17:42:58 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:42:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <476A9B92.9050601@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the > particular type of violation committed by an opponent. > > Webster defines "indemnity" as "security against hurt, > loss, or damage". > > So when exactly can the TD wheel out L12A1? > > As English is not my first language I'd appreciate an explanation > laid out in simple words and, more important, in practical terms. > > It isn't mine, either, but I'll have a shot at it. Sometimes, an act is an obvious infraction, but is so unusual that the Lawmakers didn't imagine it happening. But one feels something should be done to deter them from doing it again. > I'd really like to see a specific example when the TD assigns > an adjusted score and L12A1 is the basis of the ruling rather than > any of the MI laws, or UI laws, or could-have-known laws or whatever. Emphasis on "specific example". An example when we really need > L12A1 or else someone would get away with murder. > 1. A player picks a card from another's players hand to look at it. 2. A player infracts L74A2 in such an outrageous way that the opponents lose the thread of the deal. 3. Declarer calls cards in some exotic language, making it impossible to know whether dummy acts as his agent or shows initiative. As there is no law to disallow communication between declarer and dummy, we need something more general. Too elephantine ? Yes, but these were IMHO the cases for which this rule was made. And I've seen all of them happen. More generally, any law with "should" as its main verb means there will seldom be a penalty ... but there can be some. And L12A1 tells us we may apply some. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 20 17:45:27 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:45:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000b01c84327$bedba3b0$3c92eb10$@com> [KC] The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. Webster defines "indemnity" as "security against hurt, loss, or damage". So when exactly can the TD wheel out L12A1? [DALB] I don't know. I'd have thought he ought to be able to use it in a case where a partnership finds a successful defence, that it might otherwise not have found, because of information arising from some infraction to which L72B1 does not apply. There was an example a while back (I don't recall whether it was on this forum) in which East led a club out of turn. South told West to lead a club, but West didn't have any clubs. When East won the suit West did lead, he gave West a club ruff and beat the contract, which he might or might not have done had the original violation of law not occurred. Much waffle took place on the subject of what "arising from" means, most of it conducted by people whose first language you would expect to be English until you read the waffle. But the obvious thing to do appeared to me to use L12A1 to give a score of down one some of the time, making the rest of the time. I have no idea why the law says "type of violation" and not simply "violation". David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 20 18:00:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:00:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000001c842ed$132a22b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c842ed$132a22b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <476A9F95.4040100@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe >> Norway can then opt to stay out of that. > > In Norway we want the players to be responsible and play their own cards, > not to lean back and let the Director (or AC) play the cards for them. > > That, I suppose, is one reason why we do not fancy default rules on how > cards are played if the player does not make a statement. And that is also > why we rule the player to having selected the most unfavourable (for his > side) line of play when several alternatives are reasonably possible. > Up until that penultimate word Sven, you were making some sort of sense. And then you had to use "reasonably". Everything you say is true - but it's simply impossible to not allow some level of "reason". Otherwise, the claim with 13 top tricks after the lead will get ruled against. Yes, you need "reasonably". We prefer to call it "normal". And that is what the discussion is all about. Is it normal to keep trumps till last, or not? And nothing you can utter about Norway or any place else will help in that decision. Certainly not starting to use another word. I, for one, do not find the alternative of cashing trumps, reasonable. So your argument fails to impress me. And I hope others as well. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Thu Dec 20 18:35:28 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:35:28 EST Subject: [blml] Indemnity Message-ID: In a message dated 20/12/2007 16:48:39 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: There was an example a while back (I don't recall whether it was on this forum) in which East led a club out of turn. South told West to lead a club, but West didn't have any clubs. When East won the suit West did lead, he gave West a club ruff and beat the contract, which he might or might not have done had the original violation of law not occurred. Much waffle took place on the subject of what "arising from" means, most of it conducted by people whose first language you would expect to be English until you read the waffle. But the obvious thing to do appeared to me to use L12A1 to give a score of down one some of the time, making the rest of the time. [paul lamford] I am familiar with this example - indeed I was the original poster on IBLF, and agree with David that an adjustment is justified when the penalty provided by the law is, or turns out to be, inadequate. BLMLers can see more details at _http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showforum=3_ (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showforum=3) . The majority view there, however was that the result should just be "rub of the green", a view I do not share. I presume that the TD is entitled to apply L12A1 to restore equity when, after the prescribed penalty is applied, the NOS is still damaged by the infraction, whether unluckily or otherwise. However, law 12B states: 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. This appears to me to contradict L12A1 to some extent, when a penalty is actually specified, and establishing primacy does not seem to be easy. From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 20 18:50:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:50:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476A9F95.4040100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c84330$e012d180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > And nothing you can utter about Norway or any place else will help in > that decision Quote from Herman's previous post in this thread: "Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe Norway can then opt to stay out of that." I just responded to this comment which I found way out of line and completely unfounded. As far as I know we have to this day never disregarded any EBL recommendations. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 20 18:59:54 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:59:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476AAD9A.3070400@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [paul lamford] > I am familiar with this example - indeed I was the original poster on IBLF, > and agree with David that an adjustment is justified when the penalty > provided by the law is, or turns out to be, inadequate. BLMLers can see more details > at _http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showforum=3_ > (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showforum=3) . The majority view there, however was that > the result should just be "rub of the green", a view I do not share. I presume > that the TD is entitled to apply L12A1 to restore equity when, after the > prescribed penalty is applied, the NOS is still damaged by the infraction, > whether unluckily or otherwise. > I'd say this is not the right case for using L12A1. L72A5 clerarly says damage in that case shan't be redressed, unless L16A comes into action. Now, whether L16A indeed is applicable is the matter of the discussion (is UI a consequence of the illicit action, or only of declarer's choice ? If the former, Gampas is right ; if the latter, no redress at all, and this would be my decision). But it's explicit from the first and last words of L72A5 (and from L12B) that nothing else than L16A could be used as a basis for penalty here. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 20 19:19:53 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:19:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <476AAD9A.3070400@ulb.ac.be> References: <476AAD9A.3070400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c84334$eb7b5cf0$c27216d0$@com> [snip of previous discussion, which involved the question of whether a player had UI when he knew that his partner had a void because and only because his partner was unable to lead a suit that declarer had asked him to lead] [AG] But it's explicit from the first and last words of L72A5 (and from L12B) that nothing else than L16A could be used as a basis for penalty here. [DALB] I think Alain may mean L16C2 (in the 1997 Laws) or 16D2 (in the 2007 Laws). David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 19:29:03 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:29:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000e01c84296$d5798e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000e01c84296$d5798e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <76A4F595-6B25-4575-B92C-68112DE37E21@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................. >>> From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession >>> of the remainder, if any." >> >> That in no way implies that an attempt to claim some number of tricks >> is an attempt to concede the remainder. > > Please, please. Come on and be sensible. > > If with five tricks left to play I end the play by showing my cards > and say: > "I get two tricks", isn't that both a claim of two tricks and > simultaneously > a concession of the other three? Yes it is. But it would not have been prior to the enactment of the 1987 Laws. The only reason that a claim of two tricks is simultaneously a concession of the other three is because L68B says so. It has nothing to do with logic or being sensible. It seems unreasonable to assume that a statement such as "I get two tricks", which would *not have produced a concession* in 1986, somehow transmuted into an "attempt to concede" in 1987. In 1986, "I get two tricks" was a claim, and, if there was a problem, was adjudicated using the claim laws. There was no need, then or now, to invoke any of the laws specific to concessions. This was not a problem that needed fixing, and there is no reason to think it was "fixed". So why was this language ("a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any") added to the laws in 1987? Back in the "bad old days" of "that ol' black magic", when coffeehousing was still rife, one of the hoariest old chestnuts was the pseudo-claim, in which the coffeehouser would make it look like he was claiming in an attempt to induce the opponents into a revealing tell or an unwarranted concession, then, if called on it, insist that he never intended to claim. A good deal of new law was added to TFLB in a (successful) attempt to eliminate that practice. That's why we have laws saying that a declarer who shows his cards has claimed unless he demonstrably did not intend to do so, that a player who abandons his hand has conceded the rest of the tricks, and, I would argue, that a player who claims some of the rest of the tricks has conceded the others. That seems far more sensible to me than to assume that this particular change was intended to produce a legal way for play to continue after someone says "I get two tricks" and tables his cards (which is where this thread started). > I have nothing more to add to this discussion, if you want to consider > yourself a "winner" then be my guest. I will consider myself a "winner" of the BLML nitpicking-the-language- of-the-laws "game" only when I succeed in convincing TPTB at the WBF to abandon their Cheneyesque insistence on secrecy, permit future drafts of the laws to be reviewed and commented on by a significant number of knowledgeable players and directors who had nothing to do with their formulation, and, when they pronounce on clarifications or interpretations of TFLB, make a serious effort to insure that the players and directors who are expected to abide by them are informed of them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 19:50:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:50:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <208DE9FD-20E3-4059-BF77-C630E661B107@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:00 PM, richard.hills at IMMI.GOV.AU wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> Since everything in the claims laws depends on what >> "normal" is, an RA can effectively make pretty much >> whatever rules they want to just by "interpreting" the >> footnote to L70-71, without contradicting a single >> word in TFLB. > > Richard Hills: > > Regulating Authorities have many powers, but one power > that they have been denied by the WBF LC is the power > to say that "black" equals "white". That's a first! I didn't think the WBFLC had it in them to deny RAs anything at all. Have they denied them the power to say that an opening 1NT with a 4-3-3-3 9-count equals "a convention"? Have they denied them the power to say that two psychs of 1S after 1H- X-? several years apart equals "a concealed partnership understanding"? Have they denied them the power to say that an interpretation of law written by a titled official of the RA and published without disclaimer in the official publication of the RA equals "not an official interpretation". Has someone told the ACBL? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 20:27:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:27:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712191307l6be857f7r97ab1a4d693420d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16E8FD6D-DC06-438B-90F7-9CB0A138756E@starpower.net> On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:14 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 19/12/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> 3 >> None >> None >> 32 >> K 2 >> None None >> None None >> AK Q2 >> AQJ >> None >> None >> None >> >> With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good." >> >> If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would >> assume that South with this statement will play his cards top >> down. I >> don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here. > > This most definitely is wrong. Unless declarer can prove that he knows > that spades are divided 1-1, he should be ruled to finesse - losing > all 3 tricks unless spades are trumps. L70E:"The Director shall not > accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which > depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a > particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of > that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to > adopt this line of play would be irrational." Keep in mind that the "top down" rule is *only* for suits that are thought to be "good" and are to be "run" or "cashed"; they do not apply to other elements of a claim. L70E is about lines of play that involve "finding... a particular card", not about unexpected "findings" that a particular card is not, as one had thought, in the pile of quitted tricks. It would apply if this declarer had said "I'll take three spade tricks" without suggesting that his spades are all high -- if he plans to drop the K because he has counted the suit to be 1-1, he must say so, and if he plans to pick up K2 on his right by repeating a successful but unproven finesse he must say so. But he is not required to state that in running a suit that he believes is all high, he will decline to take a practice pseudo-finesse against a card that (he believes) has already been played. When declarer has a long suit opposite a singleton and claims on the basis that he will run that suit, we can argue about whether top down is or is not the only "normal" play, but I don't see how we can argue that the answer depends on which hand he is in when he claims. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 20:35:39 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:35:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000101c84256$934a7450$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0712191136g2bcabefer60ef788e86350465@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0712191307l6be857f7r97ab1a4d693420d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0712201135r402bd6abl72af6c38bc0969ac@mail.gmail.com> Harald Skj?ran: > On 19/12/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > 3 > > None > > None > > 32 > > K 2 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q2 > > AQJ > > None > > None > > None > > > > With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good." > > > > If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would > > assume that South with this statement will play his cards top down. I > > don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here. > > This most definitely is wrong. Unless declarer can prove that he knows > that spades are divided 1-1, he should be ruled to finesse - losing > all 3 tricks unless spades are trumps. L70E:"The Director shall not > accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which > depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a > particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of > that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to > adopt this line of play would be irrational." > Thanks for stating your position with such clarity. I expected someone might say something like this, which is why I chose this example. But I disagree with your conclusion. Law 70E requires that director "shall not accept any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless..." We don't need to go into the "unless" clauses in this case. The success of dropping the singleton K does not depend on which player has the singleton K. More fundamentally, there is no unstated line that declarer has asked director to accept. The premise of Law 70E is not satisfied in this case, so 70E has no effect. Not only is there no unstated line of play, which is one premise of Law 70E, but also this play of the ace first works regardless of where the stiff K is, and it fails regardless of where K2 is assume one opponent has both. Furthermore, Law 70E is not supposed to allow directors to force players into trying finesses they never mentioned, desired, or considered. The director is supposed to adjudicate based on the line or lines of play implicit in the claim statement. Declarer merely said that his cards are good, and a reasonable director will assume (I have been arguing this week) that he means to play his three remaining spades from the top down. I like Eric's take on this: [Eric Landau:] Look, folks, there's two choices here. We can say that it is always abnormal to cash suits other than from the top down, period. Or we can concede that it would be abnormal with AK5 opp 42 but not abnormal with 754 opp void, thus burdening ourselves the need to find some new principle of jurisprudence which would suffice to determine whether cashing other than top down is or is not abnormal for every possible two-hand card combination. That should be doable if enough of us work on it hard enough for the next few decades. I think the former approach stands out. [Jerry Fusselman:] Me too. It seems so wise to me that I think it works quite well even in this case, which could trap a director into requiring a finesse when declarer wanted none. The principle I propose is that if declarer wants to run a suit, such as when says it is good, the director assumes he runs it from the top down. Jerry Fusselman From schoderb at msn.com Thu Dec 20 20:41:44 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:41:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: At the risk of jogging some minds that need jogging, this paragraph is unchanged from the previous laws, and appeared originally word-for-word in 1963 -- a date where some of you had not yet even been the result of heterogeneous sex! It is pure and simply there to let the bridge world know that there may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken care of by the rest of the laws. When such an occasion arises this paragraph gives the TD the tool to rectify the situation seeing to it that the non-offending side is not hurt. It by no means was ever meant to be in conflict with any of the provisions of the rest of the law book, and there are even words to that effect in 12 B 2 to make it clear that those specified and covered elsewhere are not to be screwed around with. Can it be any simpler? Kojak From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 21:04:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:04:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476A30B2.50700@skynet.be> References: <000c01c84028$37e2a950$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4765AB62.6090304@skynet.be> <54C9D9D4-2369-4411-83ED-4496067A9B5D@starpower.net> <47678932.6020906@skynet.be> <47691704.7030604@skynet.be> <0481C755-B895-45BF-A114-BB987283A5B4@starpower.net> <476A30B2.50700@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> Herman thus asserts that it would not be "normal" for a claimer who >>>> thinks he has the rest to overlook a safety play against the >>>> possibility that he has miscounted and his claim is invalid. That >>>> would be a bit of a stretch even were "normal" here not defined as >>>> including the careless or inferior. Moreover, we have a >>>> straightforward analogy to L70C. If you claim when there is an >>>> outstanding trump but fail to indicate that you are aware that >>>> there >>>> is a trump out, you do not get to play as though you were aware >>>> that >>>> there is a trump out. Herman's "trumps last" rule, however, says >>>> that if you claim when there are no trumps out but fail to indicate >>>> that you are aware that there are no trumps out, you *do* get to >>>> play >>>> as though you are aware that there are no trumps out. What >>>> justifies >>>> the difference? >>> I think the difference is justified by the fact that it's easy to >>> play, or state the one safety (drawing one extra round of trumps), >>> while it is impossible to play the other safety (keeping trumps till >>> last) and unworkable to mention it (because it is deemed normal by >>> some). >> >> I don't understand how a claimer's uttering the words "trumps last" >> when claiming could be thought to be "impossible" or "unworkable". > > Because you start from the American idea of "state it or be damned". > The Europeans prefer to be ruled on "state it if you want it to be > different to normal". All I have said is that the American approach is neither "impossible" nor "unworkable". I assert that it is not only possible but in use, and works fine. I certainly haven't said that it's the only "possible" or "workable" way to do things. > The bridge laws clearly provide for things not stated to be > understood. If then you, as organiser in Maryland, decide that if > something is not stated, it is not understood, then you should make > this very clear to your players. Only then can you rule against them > if they don't state it. I doubt if you have done this clear stating in > this case, but I can assume that you did. I have not "made this very clear to my players". I don't need to. It's just the way we play the game around here. I've been playing and directing since the early 60s (exclusively in the U.S.) and have never seen this to be problematic. If I rule tomorrow that a player who made a bad claim will lose two more tricks because that's what would happen if he played his trumps before his clubs he will write down the adjusted score and go on the next hand without shouting very loudly, swearing, or thinking he's been hard done by. > But anyway, this has not been made clear to my players in Antwerp. So > if I start to rule tomorrow that a claimer will cash trumps first, I > will have all hell to pay. And my players will shout very loudly "why > should I say trumps last, isn't that F* obviuous?" OK. I happen to disagree that that is "F* obvious", but if you have, as you suggest, "[made] this very clear to your players" then of course you should stand by it. Different strokes, and all that. > So you may be right in Maryland, but you would certainly be wrong in > Antwerp. I have no doubt of that. My directing credentials don't work in Antwerp, nor should they. > And maybe this difference is why the WBF has provided for SOs to be > able to formulate rules for normal lines. And maybe they ought to be > different between America and Europe. But they certainly don't need to > be different between Belgium and the Netherlands or Belgium and > France. Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe > Norway can then opt to stay out of that. OK. I respectfully suggest to Herman, however, that if wishes to enlist BLML in an effort to compile a "starter set" of rules or guidelines for determining what is or is not "normal" as defined by the claims laws -- an effort which I wholeheartedly support and encourage -- he start by making a list that might be workable and acceptable in both Europe and North America (e.g. running suits from the top), and leave the rules that run afoul of obviously different philosophies (e.g. saving trumps for last when cashing) for another day. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Dec 20 21:54:25 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 20 Dec 2007 21:54:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: <20071220205425.F05FE3E8838@f38.poczta.interia.pl> > At the risk of jogging some minds that need jogging, this paragraph is > unchanged from the previous laws, and appeared originally word-for-word in > > 1963 -- a date where some of you had not yet even been the result of > heterogeneous sex! It is pure and simply there to let the bridge world > know > that there may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken > > care of by the rest of the laws. Here is the part that I'm having a problem with. An infraction is doing something that is in conflict with one of the laws in TFLB. When an infraction is not in conflict with any of the laws in TFLB then it is, by definition, not an infraction. So your line of reasoning is contradiction in terms. When some action hasn't been "taken care of" by the rest of the laws then it is not an infraction because nullum crimen sine lege. While the premise of L12A1 is that there _has been_ an infraction. This means, implicitly, that the offender broke some specific, such-and-such law from TFLB. After reading other's posts I am beginning to think that L12A1 applies in the following situation: a) there has been an infraction - a law number XX has been broken b) law XX, unlike, say, L16, doesn't specifically give the TD the right to adjust the score; 74A1 might be an example c) in the TD's opinion the offenders benefited from the infraction d) the TD ajusts using L21A1 Now it is clear. Let me say that it would be much clearer if simply written that way. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 22:25:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:25:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <6g7u15$27o9i8@relay.skynet.be> References: <6g7u15$27o9i8@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Paul wrote: > Thank you for exposing clearly the way of thinking of psychers. > I disagree with the words "nor would partner". > This is what the Bridge Encyclopedia says regarding this issue : > "Psychic bids are not soon forgotten by the user's partner. Since > such a > bid does grossly misstate either the strength or pattern of the > hand, or > both, the results obtained tend to be memorable where the partner is > concerned. In this respect the psychic bid has the same effect as > does an > extraordinarily good guess by partner, either as declarer or > defender, a > particularly spectacular line of play or defense, or a sensationally > successful or unsuccessful save by partner. > "But where the guesses, lines of play and saves are remembered as > special > cases, the psychic calls tend to become identified with the bidding > situation in which they were used. When partner has psyched once, > for many > sessions to come every time a similar situation arises, his partner > will > remember and wonder. > "The partner who remembers and wonders is apt to test the water > before he > takes the plunge of an irreversible action predicated upon > partner's call. > A player who thus displays caution may not be deemed to be simply > prudent. > His caution stems from prior knowledge and thus constitutes prima > facie > evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists" The so-called "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" is "published by the American Contract Bridge League and prepared by its staff", who will cheerily admit that, title notwithstanding, there is nothing "official" about it. The entry on "Psychic Bidding", in particular, is an acknowledged joke, unmitigated Oakieist claptrap (mostly Mr. Oakie's own rants verbatim), pure anti-psych propaganda left over from the ACBL's massive (and essentially successful) campaign to eliminate psychs from the North American game completely that was waged under Mr. Oakie's leadership in the 1970s. It is, in effect, one man's opinion, with absolutely no relationship to any legal or jurisprudential principles or precedents, not even in the ACBL, much less in Flanders or anywhere else. For all the light it sheds on this discussion, Paul might as well have been quoting from Beowulf. > Namens John Probst > > From: "Paul" > >> The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to >> psyches >> seems ambiguous to me. >> North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this >> player >> will not be considered a psyche". >> So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. >> Why only the next one ? >> There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a >> previous (so >> far only) confrontation. >> Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact >> and asked >> him to respect the existing rules. >> I got upset because : >> - North was deliberately breaking these rules >> - psyching with this hand is merely provocative > > If you did that to me, I'd flay you. You'd get a stribg of psyches > from me; > and you'd never read any oif them, nor would partner. If you really > want to > piss me off go down that route. A few players have tried it on; and in > retrospect wished they hadn't. I invariably gain a huge number of > imps. > You'll miss a slam; then get hit for 800 when I sandbag, I have a > hell of an > > armoury I can bring forth when someone annoys me. Your actions were > despicably provocative. cheers John > >> - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better >> players) >> taking into account N's psyche. >> On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to >> psyche >> almost as often as you like. >> Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 20 22:47:07 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:47:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476A9F95.4040100@skynet.be> References: <000001c842ed$132a22b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <476A9F95.4040100@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> In Norway we want the players to be responsible and play their own >> cards, >> not to lean back and let the Director (or AC) play the cards for >> them. >> >> That, I suppose, is one reason why we do not fancy default rules >> on how >> cards are played if the player does not make a statement. And that >> is also >> why we rule the player to having selected the most unfavourable >> (for his >> side) line of play when several alternatives are reasonably possible. > > Up until that penultimate word Sven, you were making some sort of > sense. > > And then you had to use "reasonably". Everything you say is true - but > it's simply impossible to not allow some level of "reason". Otherwise, > the claim with 13 top tricks after the lead will get ruled against. > > Yes, you need "reasonably". We prefer to call it "normal". And that is > what the discussion is all about. Is it normal to keep trumps till > last, or not? No wonder this has discussion has degenerated into nonsense, if Herman thinks it is about whether it is normal to keep trumps until last. Of course it is normal to keep trumps until last. Nobody has ever disputed that it is normal to keep trumps until last. The point at issue is whether it is never normal to do anything other than keeping trumps for last. If Herman wishes to argue against Sven's position on this subject, that is the proposition he must undertake to defend. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:35 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:22:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> [WS] At the risk of jogging some minds that need jogging, this paragraph is unchanged from the previous laws, and appeared originally word-for-word in 1963 -- a date where some of you had not yet even been the result of heterogeneous sex! It is pure and simply there to let the bridge world know that there may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken care of by the rest of the laws. When such an occasion arises this paragraph gives the TD the tool to rectify the situation seeing to it that the non-offending side is not hurt. It by no means was ever meant to be in conflict with any of the provisions of the rest of the law book, and there are even words to that effect in 12 B 2 to make it clear that those specified and covered elsewhere are not to be screwed around with. Can it be any simpler? [DALB] I am having considerable difficulty with this. Bridge is a game that has laws; those laws establish how the game is played - and, of course, how it is not played. There can never be, and could not ever have been even in 1963, "infractions that have not yet been thought of"; anything done while playing bridge is either in accordance with the laws or it is not. The problem is highlighted by the substitution of the word "rectification" for "penalty" in the new Laws. A "penalty" may be unduly severe on the offenders or unduly advantageous to the non-offenders. Similarly, as in the case of East giving West a ruff after East has led out of turn, a "penalty" may not seem to penalise the offenders sufficiently, or may even give them an advantage they would not otherwise have enjoyed. When we talk of "penalties", we may dismiss such occurrences as "rub of the green" - we may even use the expression "Oh shit happens". But to "rectify" a situation means to put it right; a situation cannot be said to have been "put right" if someone suffers or benefits unduly after the supposed "rectification" has taken place. The new L12B2 seems to me to be simple nonsense. It could not be simpler nonsense - that much is true. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 21 01:53:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:53:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Law 40C1. Message-ID: <003e01c8436c$25bcac70$38cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> Message-ID: <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > [DALB] > > Bridge is a game that has laws; those laws establish > how the game is played - and, of course, how it is > not played. There can never be, and could not ever > have been even in 1963, "infractions that have not > yet been thought of"; anything done while playing > bridge is either in accordance with the laws or it is > not. > > But to "rectify" a situation means to put it right; a > situation cannot be said to have been "put right" if > someone suffers or benefits unduly after the supposed > "rectification" has taken place. The new L12B2 seems > to me to be simple nonsense. It could not be simpler > nonsense - that much is true. > +=+ I agree with the first of these paragraphs. Concerning the second I defer to the definition of 'rectification' in the 2007 Laws. It reads "the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention'. This does not go as far as 'put right'; it measures short of the dictionary meaning of the word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <476569D4.1050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > b) the EBL AC decisions do not count as precedent. The laws of bridge do not countenance binding precedent being set by ACs (at any level). Equally the binding interpretation of law is the sole responsibility of the WBFLC (once approved by the WBF). ZOs, NAs, ACs etc have no business trying to *tell* TDs how to rule in *future* cases - their powers are strictly limited to the review of past cases (and wrt to ACs only judgement elements of such cases). They may advise TDs as how they would wish a law to be interpreted but an *instruction* as to how to rule is without legal standing. > Maybe the EBL AC is a higher authority > than the joint TD's of Norway - or maybe not. There is no maybe, it is not. The "higher authorities" to an individual TD ruling a case are: The AC convened to review a specific TD decision (on judgement only). The NA if hearing a case already heard by an AC. The International Sports Court. (There is no provision in law for the EBL/WBF to rule on a case from a national event). "Joint TDs" do not exist. Every ruling is the responsibility of a single TD (in events with multiple TDs the legal responsibility lies with the CTD). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <02DC20D6-F72D-4CEC-980D-FFBE9DB5ABF6@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > My view is that keeping trumps for last is "dictionary-normal"; > it's what *careful* players do routinely. But accepting the > practice violates the footnote, which tells us that carelessness > does not imply "abnormality". In the club where I usually play it is "normal" to play a high (or believed high) trump first but keep a low (or possibly low) trump to last. It's not merely "careless" for the players to do otherwise but peculiar/bizarre/strange/weird - get out your thesaurus and find any antonym you like for "normal". The things that are "abnormal" in one club *may* be routine in another in the same city. That's something a TD moving from club to club must adapt to but it does make any suggestion of global guidelines inappropriate. I'm trying to achieve equity so I'll consider how the hand would have gone had there been no claim. I seldom have any doubts that, e.g., suits would be played from the top were play to continue. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000e01c84296$d5798e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Please, please. Come on and be sensible. > > If with five tricks left to play I end the play by showing my cards > and say: > "I get two tricks", isn't that both a claim of two tricks and > simultaneously a concession of the other three? Indeed it is. And partner may object to the concession - and it will be deemed not to have occurred. The claim itself is still there. According to the lawbook play still ceases and the TD will rule on how many of the "conceded" tricks will be taken by the defence. It's as if claimer had said "I make these two tricks - sort out the rest amongst yourselves". If there's a concession but no claim (ie a concession of all the remaining tricks) *and* an immediate objection then play doesn't have to cease. There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c84330$e012d180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > I just responded to this comment which I found way out of line and > completely unfounded. As far as I know we have to this day never > disregarded any EBL recommendations. It shouldn't be a matter of "disregarding". On most matters (ie apart from Zonal options) the EBL has no authority as to how the game is ruled in Norway. The Norwegian NO should be *choosing* which EBL regs it wishes to implement and which it does not (technically it choose to even bother looking at them). Equally the Norwegian NO (as with all other NOs) has no authority to tell individual TDs how the laws should be interpreted. *Only* TDs (on an case by case basis) and the WBF LC (on a general basis) are empowered to interpret the law. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > If a word or phrase in the 2007 Lawbook is not defined > by the 2007 Lawbook, then the WBF Laws Committee has > ruled that the dictionary definition applies. So a > Regulating Authority may not reverse the dictionary > meaning of Law 70-71 footnote's "careless" into the De > Wael-suggested "careful" (to draw trumps then save > remaining trumps for last). That matters not. While "normal" includes "careless" it does not include "bizarre". An RA can legitimately gives examples of things it considers "bizarre" and have a regulation saying that bizarre play should not be considered when considering claims. In my world it is loony-tunes not to draw "one for lurkers" when looking at Trump Ace+ high cards. I fully accept that in some places (probably including Australia) "loony-tunes" is considered normal. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 02:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > *From:* "Harald Skj?ran" > *To:* "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > *Date:* Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:14:16 +0100 > > On 19/12/2007, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > Ed Reppert: > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > > > > My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered. > > Maybe I > > > > need to rephrase the question more concretely: > > > > > > > > On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A > > claims > > > > with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has > > the last > > > > remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he > > read EBU > > > > White Book clause 70.5. Assume Director X here rules all > > three tricks > > > > to declarer. > > > > > > > > Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and > > the same > > > > play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time > > Director X > > > > rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5. Why did > > he rule > > > > differently for Mr. B? The words that sound so sweet to Ed > > and Sven > > > > are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to > > Mr. A. > > > > Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. > > A. > > > > > > So do I. You have postulated an incomplete case. Given the > > facts as > > > you present them here, I see no reason why this director should > > issue > > > two different rulings. > > > > > > > My guess is that it might be because of class of player. Richard > > has > > not yet said. Richard has stated that sometimes he agrees that > > the > > stiff 6 should be deemed to win over the 754 that were claimed > > good. > > Richard has not said why he thinks so, other than to quote EBU > > clause > > 70.5. > > > > Ed and Sven, I appreciate your attempts to follow my argument and > > explain things to me. I think we are now communicating, and we > > have > > achieved much agreement. > > > > I am beginning to think clause 70.5 is dead anyway, due to its > > use of > > the word "irrational," which has been removed from > > contested-claims > > parts of the 2008 laws. But I am still curious why anyone would > > want > > to sometimes rule that a 754 loses to a stiff 6. Richard? > > Anyone? > > > > Dave Burn's example does not help, because ruling top-down works > > perfectly: > > > > [Dave Burn] > > > > > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position: > > > > > > None > > > None > > > None > > > 432 > > > 8 64 > > > None None > > > None None > > > AK Q > > > 75 > > > 3 > > > None > > > None > > > > > > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more > > trumps out and > > > both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make? > > > > [Steve Wilner] > > > > Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down." Can anyone > > offer > > an example where it works badly? > > > > As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or > > will > > result in random rulings. > > > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > > > BLML seems now close to a consensus that top-down (within a suit) > > is a > > fine principle. The only remaining voices against it I can > > recall are > > three: (1) EBU White Book, clause 70.5, now probably dead; (2) > > Richard Hills agreement a week ago with the example in clause > > 70.5, as > > I have described above, but he has not clarified why and no one > > else > > has agreed; (3) Dave Burn's example above, while interesting, > > does > > not show any problem with assuming top-down. I.e., you get > > everyone's > > preferred answer of 1 trick to South by assuming top-down: Trump > > first, because it is the least-advantageous suit order to do what > > he > > intended to do---cash his "winners." He might play trump first > > at the > > table to induce an opponent to make a discarding mistake just in > > case > > his assumption that he had all winners in the side suits was > > incorrect. I.e., trumps first is a normal option for this claim > > statement. > > > > Steve's paraphrase of Eric's point makes me wonder: Does someone > > care > > not one bit how random our rulings are? > > > > Possibly Dave Burn can come up with another example, perhaps > > similar > > to his last, where the top-down assumption gives declarer too > > much. > > He might give us something like this: > > > > 3 > > None > > None > > 32 > > K 2 > > None None > > None None > > AK Q2 > > AQJ > > None > > None > > None > > > > With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good." > > If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would > > assume that South with this statement will play his cards top > > down. I don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here. > > This most definitely is wrong. Unless declarer can prove that he > knows that spades are divided 1-1, Not at all. If we establish that declarer believes the lead is in the South hand and that the SK is the only remaining spade outstanding then equity requires that we award three tricks to declarer (the number he would have made had his belief been correct). It is our job to determine what would have happened had declarer (labouring under whatever misconceptions caused him to make a false claim) actually chosen to play on. Only if we have doubts as to what might have happened do we consider other lines. Tim From paul.vdm at skynet.be Fri Dec 21 05:20:01 2007 From: paul.vdm at skynet.be (Paul) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> The reality in Flanders is that psychs are highly unusual,especially in the lower competitions. They are not commonly accepted and even considered as more or less despicable by 99 % of the players. Very few players become "specialists" and enjoy the confusion and outrage they cause. But psychs are allowed - once. Psychs are registered by the VBL when they are noted on the official competition report. The same player (pair) is considered to have a forbidden implicit partnership understanding the next time he (or they) use a psych. There is no clarity about for how long this period should last. I believe that the reaction of Grattan Endicott under header "2007 Law 40C1" can be a good guidance in this respect. In the case described, all elements are present to assume implicit partnership understanding. The fact that I reminded player North of his previous psych and warned him not to repeat this action, as he may be committing a voluntary offence or at least misbehaviour, is no provocation. It reflects the common practices in the VBL, and the competition director who rules the "league" competition, is totally in line with this reflection. Psyching with a hand totally unsuited for this, knowing your partner will understand the situation, with the only goal to upset opponents, does not seem to me the most sportsmanlike or ethical behaviour as required at the bridge table. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Eric Landau Verzonden: donderdag 20 december 2007 22:25 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Strange biddings On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Paul wrote: > Thank you for exposing clearly the way of thinking of psychers. > I disagree with the words "nor would partner". > This is what the Bridge Encyclopedia says regarding this issue : > "Psychic bids are not soon forgotten by the user's partner. Since > such a bid does grossly misstate either the strength or pattern of the > hand, or both, the results obtained tend to be memorable where the > partner is concerned. In this respect the psychic bid has the same > effect as does an extraordinarily good guess by partner, either as > declarer or defender, a particularly spectacular line of play or > defense, or a sensationally successful or unsuccessful save by > partner. > "But where the guesses, lines of play and saves are remembered as > special cases, the psychic calls tend to become identified with the > bidding situation in which they were used. When partner has psyched > once, for many sessions to come every time a similar situation arises, > his partner will remember and wonder. > "The partner who remembers and wonders is apt to test the water before > he takes the plunge of an irreversible action predicated upon > partner's call. > A player who thus displays caution may not be deemed to be simply > prudent. > His caution stems from prior knowledge and thus constitutes prima > facie evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists" The so-called "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" is "published by the American Contract Bridge League and prepared by its staff", who will cheerily admit that, title notwithstanding, there is nothing "official" about it. The entry on "Psychic Bidding", in particular, is an acknowledged joke, unmitigated Oakieist claptrap (mostly Mr. Oakie's own rants verbatim), pure anti-psych propaganda left over from the ACBL's massive (and essentially successful) campaign to eliminate psychs from the North American game completely that was waged under Mr. Oakie's leadership in the 1970s. It is, in effect, one man's opinion, with absolutely no relationship to any legal or jurisprudential principles or precedents, not even in the ACBL, much less in Flanders or anywhere else. For all the light it sheds on this discussion, Paul might as well have been quoting from Beowulf. > Namens John Probst > > From: "Paul" > >> The position of the VBL (Flemish Bridge League) with regards to >> psyches seems ambiguous to me. >> North's psyche has been registered now and "a next psyche by this >> player will not be considered a psyche". >> So, repeated psyches are not allowed as I understand it. >> Why only the next one ? >> There is no doubt North has psyched against our team during a >> previous (so far only) confrontation. >> Before the start of this game, I had reminded North of this fact and >> asked him to respect the existing rules. >> I got upset because : >> - North was deliberately breaking these rules >> - psyching with this hand is merely provocative > > If you did that to me, I'd flay you. You'd get a stribg of psyches > from me; and you'd never read any oif them, nor would partner. If you > really want to piss me off go down that route. A few players have > tried it on; and in retrospect wished they hadn't. I invariably gain a > huge number of imps. > You'll miss a slam; then get hit for 800 when I sandbag, I have a hell > of an > > armoury I can bring forth when someone annoys me. Your actions were > despicably provocative. cheers John > >> - South was "cautious" in his bidding (and lead for the better >> players) >> taking into account N's psyche. >> On the other hand, some people say : In England you are allowed to >> psyche almost as often as you like. >> Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007 19:37 From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 21 05:37:53 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:37:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> [GE] I agree with the first of these paragraphs. Concerning the second I defer to the definition of 'rectification' in the 2007 Laws. It reads "the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention'. This does not go as far as 'put right'; it measures short of the dictionary meaning of the word. [DALB] The trouble is that it falls short of its own definition also. To "remedy" is: To cure (a disease, etc.); to put right, reform (a state of things); to rectify, make good. {Oxford English Dictionary} It used also to be: To grant (one) legal remedy; to right (one) in respect of a wrong suffered. {ibid} Now, if a "provision to be applied" still leaves some non-offending party suffering a wrong, then it is not "remedial". It should be fairly clear that the root of the word is the same as the root of words such as "medical" - the Latin "mederi", to heal). It should also be fairly clear that reliance on the definition in the Laws - "rectification" is "remedial", while to "remedy" means to "rectify" - is circular and therefore useless. Don't get me wrong. I am entirely and implacably opposed to the notion that the rules of any game should have any basis in real-life notions of what is "equitable". I think that the rules of a game should determine what is and what is not legal while the game is being played, and that as long as people operate within those rules while playing the game, no censure of their morality or standards of ethical behaviour is appropriate in the least. That's why people play games, for pity's sake - games are a momentary escape from life, where we have to judge ourselves and be judged by others according to vague and woolly notions of what is "right", or "fair", or "just". I am on record as saying that the penalty for a revoke should be death. I didn't entirely mean it, but at least if it were so, the game would soon be played only by people who could follow suit, and we would not need several pages of revoke laws. Similarly, if you claim all the tricks when you haven't got them, you should lose all the tricks you conceivably could, and (a) that would teach you to claim properly next time; (b) we would not have to listen to Herman blethering on about what is normal. It is obvious that someone who claims the rest of the tricks when he hasn't got them is acting abnormally, so why should anyone care what this lunatic was about to do? I don't believe that umpires should be telepaths - I believe they should be robots, who apply a set of rigid rules to any given set of circumstances, with the same outcome in the same circumstances for Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Helgemo. No one was more abashed than I was when that idiot Hallberg claimed his contract on a double squeeze and was awarded his contract, even though the outcome was extremely favourable as far as I was concerned (regular readers will know what I am talking about; irregular readers need not care). But there are enough benighted souls out there who think that the laws of bridge, unlike the laws of any other game in the entire history of the entire world, should somehow incorporate notions of "fairness", "justice", "equity" and - may angels and ministers of grace defend us - "sportsmanship", imported from real life. The 2007 Laws differ from preceding versions largely to the extent that they attempt to embody these vague ideas by using words such as "rectification" instead of "penalty". So be it. I'm still going to play bridge, and I'm still going to worry about what the rules say. Even if the rules, reflecting the opinion of the majority of players and of those currently in charge of the game's administration, are to be based on the principles of equity, they still have my full support. I'll give equitable rulings, and I won't shoot anyone who revokes. But in the name of all that is wonderful - can't the WBFLC use words I can understand? David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 21 09:45:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c843ad$dd38f5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 21. desember 2007 02:59 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines > > Sven wrote: > > > > I just responded to this comment which I found way out of line and > > completely unfounded. As far as I know we have to this day never > > disregarded any EBL recommendations. > > It shouldn't be a matter of "disregarding". On most matters (ie apart > from Zonal options) the EBL has no authority as to how the game is ruled > in Norway. The Norwegian NO should be *choosing* which EBL regs it > wishes to implement and which it does not (technically it choose to even > bother looking at them). Equally the Norwegian NO (as with all other NOs) > has no authority to tell individual TDs how the laws should be > interpreted. *Only* TDs (on an case by case basis) and the WBF LC (on a > general basis) are empowered to interpret the law. > > Tim Did you notice that I (deliberately) used the word "recommendations"? Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 21 09:49:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:49:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c843ae$5bcf9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 21. desember 2007 02:59 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > Sven wrote: > > Please, please. Come on and be sensible. > > > > If with five tricks left to play I end the play by showing my cards > > and say: > > "I get two tricks", isn't that both a claim of two tricks and > > simultaneously a concession of the other three? > > Indeed it is. And partner may object to the concession - and it will be > deemed not to have occurred. The claim itself is still there. According > to the lawbook play still ceases and the TD will rule on how many of the > "conceded" tricks will be taken by the defence. It's as if claimer had > said "I make these two tricks - sort out the rest amongst yourselves". > If there's a concession but no claim (ie a concession of all the > remaining tricks) *and* an immediate objection then play doesn't have to > cease. > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an objection > and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > > Tim Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 21 10:17:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:17:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c84330$e012d180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c84330$e012d180$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <476B84C0.60305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> And nothing you can utter about Norway or any place else will help in >> that decision > > Quote from Herman's previous post in this thread: > "Which is why I want to see the EBL tackle this. And maybe Norway can then > opt to stay out of that." > > I just responded to this comment which I found way out of line and > completely unfounded. As far as I know we have to this day never disregarded > any EBL recommendations. > I did not say that you had, or even the you would, only that you could. What I am trying to get to are recommendations. My own country is so small (well, three times as large as yours - by inhabitants - but not by bridge world champions) that I don't want to write recommendations for Belgium - I want to write them for the EBL. The WBF has given the task of writing recommendations to the SOs, which is usually seen as the NBOs. But I would like to see it done by the EBL. If Norway finds the EBL recommendation wrong for their players, they can still opt out. It strengthens me in my resolve to see that you would not want Norway to opt out of such recommendations. It means my workings to get them written would be interesting. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 21 10:17:59 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:17:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com><004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> Message-ID: <001001c843b2$77c44410$67d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > [GE] > > I agree with the first of these paragraphs. Concerning the second I defer > to > the definition of 'rectification' in the 2007 Laws. It reads "the remedial > provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's > attention'. This does not go as far as 'put right'; it measures short of > the > dictionary meaning of the word. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that it falls short of its own definition also. To "remedy" > is: > > To cure (a disease, etc.); to put right, reform (a state of things); to > rectify, make good. > > {Oxford English Dictionary} > +=+ We are not concerned with 'remedy' but with 'remedial'. In the dictionary 'remedial' = 'curative' = 'tending to cure'. 'tending' = 'to have a general disposition to do', 'inclined to do'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 21 10:19:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: References: <000001c842ed$132a22b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <476A9F95.4040100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <476B853E.9010800@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Yes, you need "reasonably". We prefer to call it "normal". And that is >> what the discussion is all about. Is it normal to keep trumps till >> last, or not? > > No wonder this has discussion has degenerated into nonsense, if > Herman thinks it is about whether it is normal to keep trumps until > last. Of course it is normal to keep trumps until last. Nobody has > ever disputed that it is normal to keep trumps until last. The point > at issue is whether it is never normal to do anything other than > keeping trumps for last. If Herman wishes to argue against Sven's > position on this subject, that is the proposition he must undertake > to defend. > I hope you all understand that I do grasp this distinction, and yes Eric, you are right in pointing it out. The question should of course be: is it normal to NOT keep trumps till last. All the rest is correct as stated, OK? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 21 10:32:01 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:32:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings References: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c843b4$61f0bb80$67d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <008301c843b7$45d45a80$67d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? > > Sven > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or not a concession is in company with a claim, when a player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the law requires that 'play continues' (sic). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 10:53:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:53:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> Message-ID: <476B8D0E.90501@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > > I am having considerable difficulty with this. Bridge is a game that has > laws; those laws establish how the game is played - and, of course, how it > is not played. There can never be, and could not ever have been even in > 1963, "infractions that have not yet been thought of"; anything done while > playing bridge is either in accordance with the laws or it is not. > I'm not sure I understand this. L74A implies that many behaviours might constitute an infraction ; several laws tackle mannerisms and illicit communication. Surely there are some behaviours and ways of communication so new or strange that none of us has ever heard of them happening at the table before. When cellular phones came on the market, it was decided that letting one's ring was an infraction to L74A2, and it became a cause for penalty. Did the 1963 lawmakers know that cheats might use miniaturized microphones ? But surely you don't want them to escape with this, on the grounds that nobody had thought about it at the time laws were devised. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 11:09:16 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> References: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <476B90CC.20900@ulb.ac.be> Paul a ?crit : > The reality in Flanders is that psychs are highly unusual,especially in the > lower competitions. They are not commonly accepted and even considered as > more or less despicable by 99 % of the players. Very few players become > "specialists" and enjoy the confusion and outrage they cause. But psychs > are allowed - once. > Psychs are registered by the VBL when they are noted on the official > competition report. The same player (pair) is considered to have a > forbidden implicit partnership understanding the next time he (or they) use > a psych. There is no clarity about for how long this period should last. I > believe that the reaction of Grattan Endicott under header "2007 Law 40C1" > can be a good guidance in this respect. > In the case described, all elements are present to assume implicit > partnership understanding. > You (or the Flemish league) seem to mix up two things : 1) Were they conscious that they might psyche ? Let's assume they were. This can't be illicit per se, or any pair that psyched would be disallowed to play together. 2) Did the player use this knowledge ? The answer is a firm no : doubling 3NT is bad bridge (4D might be laydown and gilding the lily is seldom good strategy) and the lead in partner's suit was duly made. I can't understand what your "elements" are. The fact is, by stating that every psyche will be considered use of implicit understanding, the Flemish League creates a contradiction. If a player sometomes psyches and his partner considers this ridiculous (I can give names), where is the understanding ? And anyway, this is not a valid reason for refusing to play. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 11:19:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:19:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <005d01c843b4$61f0bb80$67d0403e@Mildred> References: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> <005d01c843b4$61f0bb80$67d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <476B9343.1050507@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > "to deem that an implicit understanding exists > it must be determined that the partner of the player > who psyches has a heightened awareness that in > the given situation the call may be psychic. This > will be the case only if in the opinion of the > committee one of the following circumstances is > established: > > (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the > partnership on several occasions in the past, > and not so long ago that the memory of the > actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit > is to be identified when an occurrence is so > frequent that it may be anticipated; or > > (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has > occurred in the partnership and it is considered > the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot > have faded from mind; or > > AG : I like this wording. And the fact that Paul could tell about another psyche made by this same pair, even if it was in similar circumstances (which he doesn't say it was), doesn't prove anything. I can tell you about an extraordinary psyche performed by Marcel Goedertier against me and the guy isn't in the land of the living since more than 20 years. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 21 13:20:31 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 21 Dec 2007 13:20:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: <20071221122032.059544B326B@f33.poczta.interia.pl> > Did the 1963 lawmakers know that cheats might use miniaturized > microphones ? > But surely you don't want them to escape with this, on the grounds that > nobody had thought about it at the time laws were devised. You don't need L12A1 for that. You have 73B2. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rozdajemy nagrody! Wygraj samochod! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cb8 From Gampas at aol.com Fri Dec 21 13:44:45 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:44:45 EST Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: In a message dated 21/12/2007 04:35:08 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: "as long as people operate within those rules while playing the game, no censure of their morality or standards of ethical behaviour is appropriate in the least." [paul lamford] I agreed with virtually everything you said regarding the rules of the game, and the need for understandable English. The one clause with which I do not entirely agree is the above. For example: The current announcing rules, in England and some other countries I believe, state that you should just say "weak" if your partner opens, say, Two Hearts or Two Spades, if it does not promise length in another suit. Say you are playing Lucas, Woo, Icelandic or whatever Two Bids, which are 5-4 or 5-5 in the bid major and another suit, say a minor. You add to these hands which have six-cards in that major and a void in a minor, and now you only have to say "weak" when partner opens Two Hearts or Two Spades, rather than alert, as length in another specified suit is not promised. Of course your card is clear on the subject, with full disclosure, but the damage has been done, and the benefit reaped, against an opponent who does not think to ask further. I would regard this as an inappropriate "back-room lawyer" exploitation of loopholes in the rules of the game. And I am not sure that the person operating in this way would escape David's approbation. The line between "using the laws" and "sharp practice" is a thin one. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 14:00:58 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:00:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> Message-ID: <476BB90A.6000404@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > I am having considerable difficulty with this. Bridge is a game that has > laws; those laws establish how the game is played - and, of course, how it > is not played. There can never be, and could not ever have been even in > 1963, "infractions that have not yet been thought of"; anything done while > playing bridge is either in accordance with the laws or it is not. > AG : if my former examples were unperfect, I'd like to add another : before screens were used (or at least before Mr Feline imagined the Curtain, the Apron and the Ferret, ancestors of screens and trays), the "unmistakable irregularity" of looking sideways to try and see when a player on the other side picks one's bid, couldn't have been thought of. When a new gadget is launched, unless it is precisely at the time of law rewriting, there is a period during which it isn't mentioned in TFLB and irregularities in its use need L12A1 to elicit sanction. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Fri Dec 21 14:06:55 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:06:55 +0900 Subject: [blml] 40B3? Message-ID: <200712211306.AA11800@geller204.nifty.com> L40B3 says: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity." I can understand the first (following a question asked) and third (following any irregularity), but not the second (following a response to a question). EXAMPLE 1: I open 1NT, and LHO doubles. Partner asks the meaning of the double (penalty of takeout). We vary our treatments according to the opponents answer. EXAMPLE 2. I open 1NT, and LHO bids 2C. Partner asks the meaning. We vary our treatments according to the opponents answer (i.e. whether 2C shows majors, or an unspecified one suiter, or ....). In both of the above examples we are "varying our understanding according to the answer to a question," so the RA could forbid us from doing that. (In practice I doubt any sane RA ever would forbid this.) But my question is, what sort of "varying one's understanding according to the answer to a question" did the drafters have in mind? Can anyone provide a good example. Thanks. Best, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 14:15:46 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:15:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476BBC82.4000608@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > The current announcing rules, in England and some other countries I believe, > state that you should just say "weak" if your partner opens, say, Two Hearts > or Two Spades, if it does not promise length in another suit. Say you are > playing Lucas, Woo, Icelandic or whatever Two Bids, which are 5-4 or 5-5 in the > bid major and another suit, say a minor. You add to these hands which have > six-cards in that major and a void in a minor, and now you only have to say > "weak" when partner opens Two Hearts or Two Spades, rather than alert, as length > in another specified suit is not promised. Of course your card is clear on > the subject, with full disclosure, but the damage has been done, and the > benefit reaped, against an opponent who does not think to ask further. > The problem with this lies in the language rather than in bridge. "A weak 2-bid" is something else than "a 2-bid that's weak". English, more than other languages, is full of unanalyzable colloquialisms, and such situations are extremely difficult to avoid. I ha recently a problem because I explained my partner's 2-way 2-heart bid as "weak in spades or strong in hearts", intending to mean "weak 2-bid is spades or strong 2-bid in hearts", but opponents didn't understand it, because a hand that's strong in hearts will often be weak in spades, won't it ? Another example : imagine your OC says you have to alert nonforcing new suits. Say you play nonforcing new suits, even unpassed. Do you alert nonforcing new suits by PH ? If you don't because it's "common knowledge" rather than an agreement, you're wrong : if you do use "nonforcing new suits", the standards are different from those for a PH new suit, something they must be made aware of. The problem would be greater still if there was a question : "weak ?" and you answered "yes", which some consider sharp practice, or worse, while others say that when you answer the question as it was asked, you're within the law. Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 14:17:24 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:17:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> References: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0712210517s57fea6eal48f99fccf1f50999@mail.gmail.com> > The fact that I reminded player North of his previous psych and warned him > not to repeat this action, as he may be committing a voluntary offence or at > least misbehaviour, is no provocation. It reflects the common practices in > the VBL, and the competition director who rules the "league" competition, is > totally in line with this reflection. This comment goes a long way in explaining some elements about this case that I originally found confusing. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to "psyche" 1C in first seat with long spades. I've seen a lot of weird stuff in my day, but I haven't ever seen that one before, nor did it make sense. This additional information makes a lot of sense. If some idiot ever came up to me and gave me such a warning, I'd go out of my way to piss him off for the rest of the match. In retrospect, the 1C psyche makes enormous sense. 1. It would piss off Paul and probably degrade his play throughout the rest of the match 2. I can almost gauruntee that this psyche never came up before in the partnership (its a stupid psyche). This means that partner could never be expected to field it. 3. If the tournament director were stupid enough to tell me not to psyche, I could then safely psyche a second time. Partner could hardly expect that I would disobey a direct order from the TD. Paul: One thing that you might want to seriously consider... You run a very real risk that your opponents might decide that making you angry is ever so much more fun that actually tyring to win the match... > Psyching with a hand totally unsuited for this, knowing your partner will > understand the situation, with the only goal to upset opponents, does not > seem to me the most sportsmanlike or ethical behaviour as required at the > bridge table. -- "First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs." Peter Ellis From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 21 14:30:03 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 21 Dec 2007 14:30:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs Message-ID: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Hi, It's me again. L12C2c "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session." What is the equivalent in imps of a 60% session? In an IMP session of 20 deals (Butler scoring) the highest possible score is 24 IMPs x 20 = 480 IMPs. 60% of that is +288 IMPs a score almost unheard of. Does this mean that we award +3 as average plus in a 20 deal IMP session unless the contestant's score is +288 IMPs in which case we award him another 288 IMPs as average plus (his session score) making his score +578 IMPs? Makes no sense to me. It looks that the remarks in parenthesis about the equivalent in IMPs were added "without pause for thought". Or, as usual, I'm missing something that is obvious to the rest of the world. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Diverse Extreme Team Goes Dakar >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca9 From geller at nifty.com Fri Dec 21 14:51:14 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:51:14 +0900 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com> Hi, In this case I agree completely with you that "the equivalent in imps of a 60% session" is not well defined. -Bob Konrad Ciborowski ????????: >Hi, > >It's me again. > >L12C2c > >"The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that >obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or >for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less >than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). >Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the >equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session." > >What is the equivalent in imps of a 60% session? > >In an IMP session of 20 deals (Butler scoring) >the highest possible score is 24 IMPs x 20 = 480 IMPs. >60% of that is +288 IMPs a score almost unheard of. > > Does this mean that we award +3 as average plus in a 20 deal >IMP session unless the contestant's score is +288 IMPs >in which case we award him another 288 IMPs as average plus >(his session score) making his score +578 IMPs? > >Makes no sense to me. > >It looks that the remarks in parenthesis about the >equivalent in IMPs were added "without pause for thought". >Or, as usual, I'm missing something that is obvious to the rest of >the world. > > > > >-- >Konrad Ciborowski >Krak?, Poland > >----------------------------------------------------------------- ----- >Diverse Extreme Team Goes Dakar >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca9 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 15:26:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:26:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <476BCD10.5020409@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > Hi, > > It's me again. > > L12C2c > > "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that > obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or > for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less > than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). > Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the > equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session." > > What is the equivalent in imps of a 60% session? > > In an IMP session of 20 deals (Butler scoring) > the highest possible score is 24 IMPs x 20 = 480 IMPs. > 60% of that is +288 IMPs a score almost unheard of. > > Not the right way to compute that. 50% is the equivalent of 0 IMPs, not 240. > Does this mean that we award +3 as average plus in a 20 deal > IMP session unless the contestant's score is +288 IMPs > in which case we award him another 288 IMPs as average plus > (his session score) making his score +578 IMPs? > Since 60% is equalled to +3 IMPs, I'd say 60% on a 20-board match is +60 IMPs, and 40% is -60 IMPs. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 21 15:41:10 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:41:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001201c843df$e5718810$afd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:30 PM Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs Hi, It's me again. L12C2c "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session." What is the equivalent in imps of a 60% session? +=+ I would interpret the comparison to be linked through 12C2(b) and 86A so that +3 imps on a board is the equivalent of 60% on the board (unless varied under 86A by the TO). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 16:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000301c843ae$5bcf9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > > > > Tim > > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a normal reading of the '97 laws). Do you understand things differently? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 16:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <008301c843b7$45d45a80$67d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Were that the case the authors would not have deleted the words "or claim" from the proposed text. Claims are not cancelled by an objection to an accompanying concession as the law is written. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 21 16:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c843ad$dd38f5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Did you notice that I (deliberately) used the word > "recommendations"? I noticed, but you gave the impression that an accusation of "disregarding EBL recommendations" was a criticism. There is no obligation on the NA to even take any notice of such recommendations so I wondered why you took umbrage. Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 21 16:45:28 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 21 Dec 2007 16:45:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs Message-ID: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> > Since 60% is equalled to +3 IMPs, I'd say 60% on a 20-board match is +60 > IMPs, and 40% is -60 IMPs. Good. So if I am about to award average plus to a contestant whose final score for the 20-deal session is 62 IMPs then he will get...? For the rest of the 19 deals he averaged 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs per deal. If you think that giving him 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs for the 20th deal as average plus which will make the contestant's final score for the sesson 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs is the right answer then please tell me what happens if the final score is supposed to be converted to VPs. Say it is a team match. According to the official IMP-VP scale for 20-deal matches a difference of 60-65 IMPs is a 25 : 3 VP win while the difference of 66-67 IMPs is a 25:2 VP win. What do you do if a team won a match by 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs? All this really hasn't been given a thought by the lawmakers. I'd really like to see it explained more clearly. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 21 16:57:07 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:57:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > What do you do if a team won a match by > 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs? Round to integer? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Fri Dec 21 17:04:28 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:04:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: No, that's exactly what happened. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > Sven wrote: > > > > > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an > > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > > > > > > Tim > > > > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? > > The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, > if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > > Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly > says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule > on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > > Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to > cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a > normal reading of the '97 laws). > > Do you understand things differently? > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Fri Dec 21 17:04:28 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:04:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: No, that's exactly what happened. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > Sven wrote: > > > > > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an > > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > > > > > > Tim > > > > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? > > The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, > if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > > Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly > says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule > on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > > Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to > cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a > normal reading of the '97 laws). > > Do you understand things differently? > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 17:06:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:06:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476BE469.6070705@ulb.ac.be> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : > The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, > if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > > Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly > says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule > on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > > AG : IMNSHO, keeping the claim was necessary, else the restricting effects of the claim (ie the claimer may only play as one said one would do). Now it also means From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 17:06:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:06:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476BE469.6070705@ulb.ac.be> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : > The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, > if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > > Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly > says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule > on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > > AG : IMNSHO, keeping the claim was necessary, else the restricting effects of the claim (ie the claimer may only play as one said one would do). Now it also means From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 21 17:08:36 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:08:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c843eb$beca1770$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Were that the case the authors would not have deleted the words "or claim" > from the proposed text. Claims are not cancelled by an objection to an > accompanying concession as the law is written. I think you should be very careful about telling Grattan what reasons the authors might have had with some law text. Instead you could ask him. But you have already received the answer. Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Fri Dec 21 17:08:36 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:08:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: I see no problem with "play continues" to resolve the disagreement with a concession, however I also see no reason to discard rectification of the claim of tricks. That was and is what the law once said, was minuted otherwise by a WBFLC decision, and again now says. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Were that the case the authors would not have deleted the words "or claim" > from the proposed text. Claims are not cancelled by an objection to an > accompanying concession as the law is written. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Fri Dec 21 17:08:36 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:08:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: I see no problem with "play continues" to resolve the disagreement with a concession, however I also see no reason to discard rectification of the claim of tricks. That was and is what the law once said, was minuted otherwise by a WBFLC decision, and again now says. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Were that the case the authors would not have deleted the words "or claim" > from the proposed text. Claims are not cancelled by an objection to an > accompanying concession as the law is written. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 17:14:56 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:14:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <476BE680.3080508@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : >> Since 60% is equalled to +3 IMPs, I'd say 60% on a 20-board match is +60 >> IMPs, and 40% is -60 IMPs. >> > > > Good. So if I am about to award average plus to a contestant > whose final score for the 20-deal session is > 62 IMPs then he will get...? > > For the rest of the 19 deals he averaged > 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs per deal. > If you think that giving him > 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs for the 20th deal > as average plus which will make the contestant's final > score for the sesson > 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs > is the right answer then please tell me what happens if > the final score is supposed to be converted to VPs. > Say it is a team match. > > Easy ! Fractional IMPs are rounded to the nearest integer (.5 usually rounded high). This happens rather frequently. For example, if you award an adjusted score of [70% of + 460] and [30% of -50] vs +50 at the other table, it is (0.7 * 9) + (0.3 * -3) = +5.4 IMPs, rounded to +5. Of course it means that, in this particular case, it will just be +3 IMPs, but make their score on 19 deals +70 and they will get +4 for the final deal. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 21 17:52:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:52:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c843f1$e6162750$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, > if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > > Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly > says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule > on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > > Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to > cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a > normal reading of the '97 laws). > > Do you understand things differently? Yes, if your understanding was the intention I do not understand why they did not write in Law 68B2 something like: "Play continues unless there also was a claim in which case C and D following apply to the claim". The fact that play shall continue effectively nullifies whatever claim (express or implied) might have occurred together with the concession that is objected to. My best guess is that they deleted the words "or claim" again because they considered these words superfluous, and maybe also because they did not want to create any impression that the reality in how the situation shall be handled is changed with this law revision. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 21 18:03:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:03:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c843f3$66a7b540$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > Did you notice that I (deliberately) used the word > > "recommendations"? > > I noticed, but you gave the impression that an accusation of > "disregarding EBL recommendations" was a criticism. I do. > There is no obligation on the NA to even take > any notice of such recommendations so I > wondered why you took umbrage. I consider such arguments (both the original that caused my reaction and yours here) in discussion derailments that are way out of line. We have a history of cooperating, not fighting once decisions are made in an orderly way, and we try to keep to the matter in discussions rather than to discuss person and nation. Do I have to say any more? Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 21 19:30:35 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 21 Dec 2007 19:30:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs Message-ID: <20071221183035.EE61D10C05C@f30.poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > >> Since 60% is equalled to +3 IMPs, I'd say 60% on a 20-board match is > +60 > >> IMPs, and 40% is -60 IMPs. > >> > > > > > > Good. So if I am about to award average plus to a contestant > > whose final score for the 20-deal session is > > 62 IMPs then he will get...? > > > > For the rest of the 19 deals he averaged > > 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs per deal. > > If you think that giving him > > 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs for the 20th deal > > as average plus which will make the contestant's final > > score for the sesson > > 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs > > is the right answer then please tell me what happens if > > the final score is supposed to be converted to VPs. > > Say it is a team match. > > > > > Easy ! Fractional IMPs are rounded to the nearest integer (.5 usually > rounded high). > > This happens rather frequently. > For example, if you award an adjusted score of [70% of + 460] and [30% > of -50] vs +50 at the other table, it is > (0.7 * 9) + (0.3 * -3) = +5.4 IMPs, rounded to +5. > > Of course it means that, in this particular case, it will just be +3 > IMPs, but make their score on 19 deals +70 and they will get +4 for the > final deal. Makes perfect sense to me but it is written where exactly in the laws? For instance when you calculate carry-over you don't round it to the nearest integer. In an IMP tournament why would you round it? 5.4 makes sense. It looks that this one of those "we all know how to do it" laws. Much like scoring a passed-out hand in the previous version of the laws. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wejdz do swiata wojny wampirow! http://link.interia.pl/f1cb4 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 19:45:50 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:45:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <476A9B92.9050601@ulb.ac.be> References: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> <476A9B92.9050601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > More generally, any law with "should" as its main verb means there > will > seldom be a penalty ... but there can be some. And L12A1 tells us > we may > apply some. Um. I have viewed the Preface's discussion of the use of should, may, must, and so on as referring to *procedural* penalties, not score adjustment. In addition, the Scope says that the laws are not designed to penalize, but to redress damage - and I was taught that score adjustment is not punishment, it is redress of damage. 12A1 addresses the situation where the law does not provide this redress, but has nothing to do with procedural penalties or the use of such words as "should". So I'm afraid this argument does not hold water. An argument that *does* hold water is that the law sometimes identifies irregularities, but provides no mechanism to redress damage. One such case is that of the use of an "illegal" (by regulation) convention. This is a violation of Law 40D, under which the regulation will have been made. But neither that law nor any other law tells the TD to adjust the score if the violation happens. So the TD could use 12A1 to do so. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 19:48:59 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:48:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <000b01c84327$bedba3b0$3c92eb10$@com> References: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> <000b01c84327$bedba3b0$3c92eb10$@com> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:45 AM, David Burn wrote: > I have no idea why the law says "type of violation" and not simply > "violation". Probably for the same reason people use "methodology" when they mean "method". It sounds more erudite to them. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 19:53:44 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:53:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <004901c84282$8a5cd320$0701a8c0@john> References: <200712181549.lBIFnwtr000739@cfa.harvard.edu> <476895C6.2020407@nhcc.net> <47691DA3.7010603@ntlworld.com> <004901c84282$8a5cd320$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <739E37FD-2D0C-421B-A7BD-AEC306717EB1@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:03 PM, John Probst wrote: > I play in his games because what is played in his games is > Contract Bridge. And that, imo, is about the best endorsement one can give of a TD. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 21:49:42 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] normal lines In-Reply-To: <208DE9FD-20E3-4059-BF77-C630E661B107@starpower.net> References: <208DE9FD-20E3-4059-BF77-C630E661B107@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0200733B-0E4F-4133-B6B0-BEF388291E18@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 20, 2007, at 1:50 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > That's a first! I didn't think the WBFLC had it in them to deny RAs > anything at all. It remains to be seen what will happen when some RA does what it damn well pleases and, in effect, refers the WBF to President Jackson's (I believe) comment regarding a ruling by Chief Justice Marshall: "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 22:07:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:07:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <008301c843b7$45d45a80$67d0403e@Mildred> References: <000301c843ae$5bcf9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <008301c843b7$45d45a80$67d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2007, at 4:52 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Precisely. But some here are arguing that if a player claims some, but not all, of the remaining tricks, *but does not mention the remainder*, he has "attempted to concede" those tricks. He has not. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 21 22:52:52 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712210517s57fea6eal48f99fccf1f50999@mail.gmail.com> References: <6g7u15$282f93@relay.skynet.be> <2da24b8e0712210517s57fea6eal48f99fccf1f50999@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93DDD166-92AA-4BA8-9720-F7C354341F67@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 21, 2007, at 8:17 AM, richard willey wrote: > I'd go out of my way to piss him off for the rest of the match. Law 74A2? From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 22 00:17:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:17:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c84427$ab622b50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > +=+ 2007 Law 68B2 applies, regardless of whether or > > not a concession is in company with a claim, when a > > player attempts to concede one or more tricks and his > > partner immediately objects. In these circumstance the > > law requires that 'play continues' (sic). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Precisely. But some here are arguing that if a player claims some, > but not all, of the remaining tricks, *but does not mention the > remainder*, he has "attempted to concede" those tricks. He has not. This is boring! Quote from (2007) Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 22 07:21:22 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:21:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000701c84427$ab622b50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c84427$ab622b50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <92813DFF-3321-4EC7-BD7C-7EF2A4CD5A0F@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 21, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > This is boring! > > Quote from (2007) Law 68B1: > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, > if any." Boring indeed. I never said it wasn't. I said it's not *an attempt*. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 22 11:21:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <92813DFF-3321-4EC7-BD7C-7EF2A4CD5A0F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c84484$60f0e130$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > This is boring! > > > > Quote from (2007) Law 68B1: > > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, > > if any." > > Boring indeed. I never said it wasn't. I said it's not *an attempt*. Sorry, I overlooked that! Regards and a wish for merry Xmas Sven From john at asimere.com Sat Dec 22 16:06:27 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:06:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> <200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > Hi, > In this case I agree completely with you that "the equivalent in > imps of a 60% session" is not well defined. We know that over 28 boards, 60% is 49 imps. (Data from 20 years of YC games, where we recorder the number of 60% scores and the spread of the imps scores. However scores tend to increase at imps but decrease at pairs over larger number of boards. Since a square root Law applies to each, we can simply scale the imps to 20 boards; 20/28 x 49 is 35 imps. We also know that for Butler scoring the 3 imp award shoul be rooot 3 x 7/6. whuch is nigh on 2 imps. This ties in nicely with the 35 imps for 20 boards. If you can be bothered try: http://www.asimere.com/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm which contains all the math necessary to compute the equivalent mps score from imps. I think the Laws cover it well; they don't say we can't use maths, and they do say we can devise any form of scoring. John > -Bob > > > Konrad Ciborowski $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >>Hi, >> >>It's me again. >> >>L12C2c >> >>"The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that >>obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available > matchpoints or >>for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is > less >>than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in > imps). >>Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the >>equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session." >> >>What is the equivalent in imps of a 60% session? >> >>In an IMP session of 20 deals (Butler scoring) >>the highest possible score is 24 IMPs x 20 = 480 IMPs. >>60% of that is +288 IMPs a score almost unheard of. >> >> Does this mean that we award +3 as average plus in a 20 deal >>IMP session unless the contestant's score is +288 IMPs >>in which case we award him another 288 IMPs as average plus >>(his session score) making his score +578 IMPs? >> >>Makes no sense to me. >> >>It looks that the remarks in parenthesis about the >>equivalent in IMPs were added "without pause for thought". >>Or, as usual, I'm missing something that is obvious to the rest > of >>the world. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Konrad Ciborowski >>Krak$B".(B, Poland >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >>Diverse Extreme Team Goes Dakar >>>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca9 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 23 01:43:59 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:43:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> <200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com> <00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000101c844fc$e870c0d0$b9524270$@com> [JP] We know that over 28 boards, 60% is 49 imps. [DALB] I am not sure how we know. Pairs (matchpoints, for the benighted) and IMPs are different games, to the extent that comparisons between them at this level of granularity (x matchpoints = y IMPs) appear to me to be meaningless. In theory, it is possible to score 100% in a 24-board pairs game by making a trick more than everyone else in the same contract; if you translated this to a match, you would win by 24 IMPs. Similarly, it is possible to score 50% in a pairs game by making a trick more than everyone else in the same contract on twelve of the boards, and going thirteen down in 7NT redoubled on the other twelve. If you did that in a match, you would lose by 276 IMPs. I have read various examples of the rationale for equating matchpoints to IMPs, and I am not remotely convinced by any of it. Still, there are compelling reasons why some figure needs to be arrived at. I have no convincing arguments why the figure I pluck out of the air should be "10% of a top = 2 IMPs" rather than the current (in England) 3 IMPs, but JP apparently has. If I score 28 60% boards in a pairs tournament, that equates to 56 IMPs at 2 IMPs a throw; not quite the 49 IMPs he quotes, but closer to that than the 84 IMPs I would have scored at 3 IMPs a throw. I still believe, though, that comparing scores achieved at pairs to scores achieved at IMPs is to compare apples not with oranges, but with screwdrivers. David Burn London, England From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Dec 23 08:18:38 2007 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20071220160752.0C2D456F818@f24.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:51 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > I'd really like to see a specific example when the TD assigns > an adjusted score and L12A1 is the basis of the ruling rather than > any of the MI laws, or UI laws, or could-have-known laws or whatever. > Emphasis on "specific example". An example when we really need > L12A1 or else someone would get away with murder. > I'd use 12A1 when there is a breach of correct procedure, but neither a prescribed penalty nor a no-penalty provision. An actual case might be a violation of L66, when a player exposes some quitted cards. This occurs fairly often (in my country), either when a player requests to see the last trick when it is too late (the 1975 change is not popular with everybody :) ), or when someone claims a revoke and people start to face quitted tricks before the TD can stop them. As the legal play is AI, there is only L12A1 to rectify any damage. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 23 09:05:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:05:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c8453a$98f434e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: 23. desember 2007 08:19 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Indemnity > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:51 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski > wrote: > > > > > > I'd really like to see a specific example when the TD assigns > > an adjusted score and L12A1 is the basis of the ruling rather than > > any of the MI laws, or UI laws, or could-have-known laws or whatever. > > Emphasis on "specific example". An example when we really need > > L12A1 or else someone would get away with murder. > > > I'd use 12A1 when there is a breach of correct procedure, but neither a > prescribed penalty nor a no-penalty provision. > An actual case might be a violation of L66, when a player exposes some > quitted cards. This occurs fairly often (in my country), either when a > player requests to see the last trick when it is too late (the 1975 change > is not popular with everybody :) ), or when someone claims a revoke and > people start to face quitted tricks before the TD can stop them. > As the legal play is AI, there is only L12A1 to rectify any damage. > Regards, > Petrus In order to use Law 12A1 you must establish both a "non-offending side" and "damage" (to NOS) that warrants rectification. It seems to me that Law 91A is better suited for the situations you present? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 23 10:32:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:32:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: <007f01c84548$613a9450$4aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > No, that's exactly what happened. > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > >> Sven wrote: >> > > >> > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an >> > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. >> > > >> > > Tim >> > >> > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? >> >> The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, >> if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner >> immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. >> >> Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly >> says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should >> cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule >> on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. >> >> Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to >> cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a >> normal reading of the '97 laws). >> >> Do you understand things differently? >> >> Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 23 10:32:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:32:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: <007f01c84548$613a9450$4aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > No, that's exactly what happened. > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > >> Sven wrote: >> > > >> > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an >> > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. >> > > >> > > Tim >> > >> > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? >> >> The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding, >> if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner >> immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. >> >> Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that clearly >> says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should >> cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would rule >> on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. >> >> Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to >> cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a >> normal reading of the '97 laws). >> >> Do you understand things differently? >> >> Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 23 10:43:07 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:43:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221154528.350094B3246@f33.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <008001c84548$623743d0$4aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > Since 60% is equalled to +3 IMPs, I'd say 60% on a 20-board match is +60 > IMPs, and 40% is -60 IMPs. Good. So if I am about to award average plus to a contestant whose final score for the 20-deal session is 62 IMPs then he will get...? For the rest of the 19 deals he averaged 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs per deal. If you think that giving him 3.2631578947368421052631578947368 IMPs for the 20th deal as average plus which will make the contestant's final score for the sesson 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs is the right answer then please tell me what happens if the final score is supposed to be converted to VPs. Say it is a team match. According to the official IMP-VP scale for 20-deal matches a difference of 60-65 IMPs is a 25 : 3 VP win while the difference of 66-67 IMPs is a 25:2 VP win. What do you do if a team won a match by 65.263157894736842105263157894737 IMPs? All this really hasn't been given a thought by the lawmakers. I'd really like to see it explained more clearly. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Dec 23 14:26:33 2007 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:26:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity In-Reply-To: <000001c8453a$98f434e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8453a$98f434e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:05:34 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sent: 23. desember 2007 08:19 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Indemnity >> >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:07:51 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > I'd really like to see a specific example when the TD assigns >> > an adjusted score and L12A1 is the basis of the ruling rather than >> > any of the MI laws, or UI laws, or could-have-known laws or whatever. >> > Emphasis on "specific example". An example when we really need >> > L12A1 or else someone would get away with murder. >> > >> I'd use 12A1 when there is a breach of correct procedure, but neither a >> prescribed penalty nor a no-penalty provision. >> An actual case might be a violation of L66, when a player exposes some >> quitted cards. This occurs fairly often (in my country), either when a >> player requests to see the last trick when it is too late (the 1975 >> change >> is not popular with everybody :) ), or when someone claims a revoke and >> people start to face quitted tricks before the TD can stop them. >> As the legal play is AI, there is only L12A1 to rectify any damage. >> Regards, >> Petrus > > In order to use Law 12A1 you must establish both a "non-offending side" > and > "damage" (to NOS) that warrants rectification. It seems to me that Law > 91A > is better suited for the situations you present? > Not so. L91A is where I look for a possible PP. But as the NOS (if there is one) may also be damaged (rarely, but possibly), I need L12A1 if I have to adjust the score. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Dec 23 14:41:21 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:41:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl><200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com> <00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <003001c8456a$e2c21800$85493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > > > > Hi, > > In this case I agree completely with you that "the equivalent in > > imps of a 60% session" is not well defined. > > We know that over 28 boards, 60% is 49 imps. (Data from 20 years of YC > games, where we recorder the number of 60% scores and the spread of the imps > scores. However scores tend to increase at imps but decrease at pairs over > larger number of boards. Since a square root Law applies to each, we can > simply scale the imps to 20 boards; 20/28 x 49 is 35 imps. We also know > that for Butler scoring the 3 imp award shoul be rooot 3 x 7/6. whuch is > nigh on 2 imps. This ties in nicely with the 35 imps for 20 boards. If you > can be bothered try: > In the Netherlands 2 imps is recommended for butler sessions. Ben From schoderb at msn.com Sun Dec 23 14:56:31 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:56:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: <007f01c84548$613a9450$4aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: I don't see a problem at all. We didn't in any way "undermine" the requirement of "play" continues. We returned to the logic of many previous years which was not clearly understood. And, we got rid of the "penalty" card of the claimant. Partner can't know to object until he/she has heard the claim and concession. Now knowing that along that line there is being conceded a trick or more that he would win, he objects to the concession. Claimant now must continue to play cards in the order in which he made the claim. For instance: He thinks that his 10 is high and he will win it and another trick and give up the rest. Partner has the jack and knows that when he wins the trick all the rest of his cards are good, so the concession was of tricks that could not be lost. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "Le congres ne marche pas, il danse" > (The Congress makes no progress , > but it dances.) > Prince de Ligne > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ We removed the words 'or claim' in Shanghai. I did > not understand at that time that we were undermining the > requirement for play to continue after partner's objection > to a concession, whether or not the concession was the > complement of a claim. So interpretation is required and > until this is provided formally the opinion of any one of > us is no more than a personal opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ================================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. > > > > Kojak > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > > > >> Sven wrote: > >> > > > >> > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an > >> > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > >> > > > >> > > Tim > >> > > >> > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? > >> > >> The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 > >> preceding, > >> if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > >> immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > >> > >> Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that > >> clearly > >> says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > >> cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would > >> rule > >> on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > >> > >> Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only > >> to > >> cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a > >> normal reading of the '97 laws). > >> > >> Do you understand things differently? > >> > >> Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sun Dec 23 14:56:31 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:56:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim References: <007f01c84548$613a9450$4aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: I don't see a problem at all. We didn't in any way "undermine" the requirement of "play" continues. We returned to the logic of many previous years which was not clearly understood. And, we got rid of the "penalty" card of the claimant. Partner can't know to object until he/she has heard the claim and concession. Now knowing that along that line there is being conceded a trick or more that he would win, he objects to the concession. Claimant now must continue to play cards in the order in which he made the claim. For instance: He thinks that his 10 is high and he will win it and another trick and give up the rest. Partner has the jack and knows that when he wins the trick all the rest of his cards are good, so the concession was of tricks that could not be lost. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "Le congres ne marche pas, il danse" > (The Congress makes no progress , > but it dances.) > Prince de Ligne > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ We removed the words 'or claim' in Shanghai. I did > not understand at that time that we were undermining the > requirement for play to continue after partner's objection > to a concession, whether or not the concession was the > complement of a claim. So interpretation is required and > until this is provided formally the opinion of any one of > us is no more than a personal opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ================================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. > > > > Kojak > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > > > >> Sven wrote: > >> > > > >> > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an > >> > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre. > >> > > > >> > > Tim > >> > > >> > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2? > >> > >> The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 > >> preceding, > >> if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner > >> immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred. > >> > >> Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold. To me that > >> clearly > >> says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should > >> cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not. The TD would > >> rule > >> on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession. > >> > >> Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only > >> to > >> cases where there was a concession but no claim. (Ie the same as a > >> normal reading of the '97 laws). > >> > >> Do you understand things differently? > >> > >> Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed Dec 19 12:58:43 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:58:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim/concession - play continues? Message-ID: Hello, I Followed your discussions about claims here. I would very much appreciate an answer to the 2 questions at the bottom of this mail. The Club TD has sent the case I explained before to one of the main TD's in Belgium and got following reply (translated from Dutch by me + notes added between brackets): "If I understand the case correctly then East (claimer) did show his cards when North (declarer) played a small club. The rules are cristal clear on this. PLAY WILL NOT CONTINUE and the director has to rule, with all cards on the table. With other words, the question if East played Club Q is totally irrelevant, because there can be no play after the claim." Remark: - Apparantly my previous description of the case was incorrect. Correction: West immediatly protested against, but he did never show his cards. Question: - Claimer claimed 2 tricks and conceded 2 and showed club Q and club T. His partner immediatly protested the claim. => Is my interpretation of your discussion here correct that the play continues and cards shown by East is UI for West? - Actually claimer played club Q immediatly followed by the T after the protest of West. Do you consider this as play or a new claim? Thanks, Koen _________________________________________________________________ Deel je gedachten direct met je vrienden http://messenger.live.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071219/483da7ca/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 23 17:52:00 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:52:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs In-Reply-To: <000101c844fc$e870c0d0$b9524270$@com> Message-ID: <815470.2678.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> [DALB] > I still > believe, though, that comparing scores achieved at > pairs to scores achieved > at IMPs is to compare apples not with oranges, but > with screwdrivers. > > [SLR] From john at asimere.com Sun Dec 23 19:32:07 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:32:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl> <200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com><00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> <000101c844fc$e870c0d0$b9524270$@com> Message-ID: <002701c84592$1f9d8da0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > [JP] > > We know that over 28 boards, 60% is 49 imps. > > [DALB] > > I am not sure how we know. Pairs (matchpoints, for the benighted) and IMPs > are different games, to the extent that comparisons between them at this > level of granularity (x matchpoints = y IMPs) appear to me to be > meaningless. In theory, it is possible to score 100% in a 24-board pairs > game by making a trick more than everyone else in the same contract; if > you > translated this to a match, you would win by 24 IMPs. Similarly, it is > possible to score 50% in a pairs game by making a trick more than everyone > else in the same contract on twelve of the boards, and going thirteen down > in 7NT redoubled on the other twelve. If you did that in a match, you > would > lose by 276 IMPs. > > I have read various examples of the rationale for equating matchpoints to > IMPs, and I am not remotely convinced by any of it. Still, there are > compelling reasons why some figure needs to be arrived at. I have no > convincing arguments why the figure I pluck out of the air should be "10% > of > a top = 2 IMPs" rather than the current (in England) 3 IMPs, but JP > apparently has. If I score 28 60% boards in a pairs tournament, that > equates > to 56 IMPs at 2 IMPs a throw; not quite the 49 IMPs he quotes, but closer > to > that than the 84 IMPs I would have scored at 3 IMPs a throw. I still > believe, though, that comparing scores achieved at pairs to scores > achieved > at IMPs is to compare apples not with oranges, but with screwdrivers. David, I entirely agree. A lot of the math associated with VP tables and such like is based on observed data. We do *know* that 49 imps is 60% based on a staggering volume of observed data; probably 800-1,000 imp games and twice the number of mp games from the YC; and the only thing we tested was what proportion of players score greater than X imps to be the same as 60+%. it turned out to be 49 imps. After that we rely on Gauss tables. The Friday night YC game was still represented as a 54% game, and we "knew" that it was about 7 or 8 imps stronger than a 50% game. All these numbers hang to gether well based on experience; about 1/4 imp a board is the average extra strength of the YC Friday night game. Purists throw up their hands in horror. Engineer just build their structure because from experience mostly we know it won't fall down. We observe that the Law recognises that 3 imps in a head to head is A+ at pairs. it says nothing more. Fortunately this is very close to the observed data, and one can stroll from mps, to Butler, to head-to-head, each time based on a lot of obseved data. ... and the numbers I mention are the ones we have teased out of this morass of results. Without question, the "correct" (ie, the best) A+ at Butler is 2 ( think it's a tad more mathematically) imps, and head to head 3 imps. If it mattered, I'd factor the 2 imps at Butler based against the 28 board 49 imps figure for completeness. so, if you have better data let me know and I'll recompute, but I have had access to vast quantities of data over time. best, John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Dec 23 19:34:29 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:34:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs References: <20071221133004.1719C4B324A@f33.poczta.interia.pl><200712211351.AA11801@geller204.nifty.com><00a301c844ac$3a236140$0701a8c0@john> <003001c8456a$e2c21800$85493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <003501c84592$76eaf2f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Geller" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs >> >> >> > Hi, >> > In this case I agree completely with you that "the equivalent in >> > imps of a 60% session" is not well defined. >> >> We know that over 28 boards, 60% is 49 imps. (Data from 20 years of YC >> games, where we recorder the number of 60% scores and the spread of the > imps >> scores. However scores tend to increase at imps but decrease at pairs >> over >> larger number of boards. Since a square root Law applies to each, we can >> simply scale the imps to 20 boards; 20/28 x 49 is 35 imps. We also know >> that for Butler scoring the 3 imp award shoul be rooot 3 x 7/6. whuch is >> nigh on 2 imps. This ties in nicely with the 35 imps for 20 boards. If > you >> can be bothered try: >> > In the Netherlands 2 imps is recommended for butler sessions. Of course. It's "right". John > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 24 01:47:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:47:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20071221183035.EE61D10C05C@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >Makes perfect sense to me but it is written >where exactly in the laws? 2007 Law 86A: When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. **Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer.** Konrad Cibororowski: >It looks that this one of those "we all know >how to do it" laws. Much like scoring a passed- >out hand in the previous version of the laws. 2007 Law 77: [snip] If all four players pass (see Law 22) each side enters a zero score. 2007 Index, explanatory note for novice TDs: Note: A "Zero score" is _not_ identical to an "Average score". Richard Hills: By the way, the 2007 addition to Law 77 was inspired by David Stevenson, who mentioned on blml some years ago that there was not any explicit mention of the scoring of a passed-in deal in the 1997 Lawbook. It seems to me that this lacuna was caused by the Rubber Laws scoretable being borrowed by the Duplicate Laws as the basis for Law 77, and of course passed-in deals are not scored at rubber bridge. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 24 04:14:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:14:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Indemnity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Um. I have viewed the Preface's discussion of the use of should, >may, must, and so on as referring to *procedural* penalties, not >score adjustment. Richard Hills agrees: The 1997 Lawbook was ambiguous. The 2007 Lawbook has replaced all score-adjusting uses of the word "penalty" with the clearer word "rectification". So in the 2007 Lawbook the word "penalty" refers only to a "disciplinary penalty" or a "procedural penalty" - although for historical reasons "penalty" remains in the phrase "penalty card". Ed Reppert: [snip] >An argument that *does* hold water is that the law sometimes >identifies irregularities, but provides no mechanism to redress >damage. One such case is that of the use of an "illegal" (by >regulation) convention. This is a violation of Law 40D, under >which the regulation will have been made. But neither that law >nor any other law tells the TD to adjust the score if the >violation happens. So the TD could use 12A1 to do so. Richard Hills quibbles: Under the 2007 Lawbook the TD would not need Law 12A1, since the 2007 Law 40B5 empowers the TD to award an adjusted score. 2007 Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Richard Hills unofficial opinion: Even if a particular Law does provide "rectification" to the non-offending side for a particular infraction, it is possible that the offending side were "Probst cheats" who deliberately committed the infraction to gain a subtle advantage. In that case there would be a gap between "rectification" and "indemnity", so the TD could use 2007 Law 12A1 to close that gap. In my opinion the key word "rectification" in the 2007 Law 12B2 is trumped by the keyer word "indemnity" in the 2007 Law 12A1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 24 05:15:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:15:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Strange biddings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0712210517s57fea6eal48f99fccf1f50999@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: [snip] >Paul: One thing that you might want to seriously consider... > >You run a very real risk that your opponents might decide >that making you angry is ever so much more fun that actually >trying to win the match... Richard Hills: Once the new Lawbook takes effect, such kamikaze bear-baiting will be clearly illegal. 2007 Law 72A, second sentence: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Richard Hills: Also, as Grattan Endicott has noted, the question is not whether a player is permitted to again psyche within a short period of time, the question rather is whether one of the WBF Code of Practice criteria for an implicit partnership understanding have been met. If one or more criteria have been met, then disclosure is the issue, not prohibition (unless the pseudo-psyche is also an illegal convention). Paul asked: >>Which rule is valid for the VBL competition ? Richard Hills: Next year this clear rule will take effect world-wide. 2007 Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Dec 24 10:29:27 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:29:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <06a901c8460f$7af2ded0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>Makes perfect sense to me but it is written >>where exactly in the laws? > > 2007 Law 86A: > > When the Director chooses to award an artificial > adjusted score of average plus or average minus > in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus > 3 IMPs respectively. **Subject to approval by > the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by > the Tournament Organizer.** Sure - I know that the Tournament Organizer may come up with any method of scoring and of computing the average plus. I know that the Tournament Organizer may further define what exactly is meant by the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs, BAM or whatever. But when one uses a phrase "a 60% session (or the equivalent in IMPs)" without any further clarification one creates something that is semantically null. Because currently if the remarks in paranthesis didn't exist at all we would be exactly in the place as we are now - the Tournament Organizer wuold have to define a specific method of his own, agreed? Just like with avg+ in BAM. So this remark in paranthesis has no meaning at all. > > Konrad Cibororowski: > >>It looks that this one of those "we all know >>how to do it" laws. Much like scoring a passed- >>out hand in the previous version of the laws. > > 2007 Law 77: > > [snip] > > If all four players pass (see Law 22) each side > enters a zero score. > I said "in the previous version". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 24 11:06:51 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:06:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Indemnity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004601c84614$c44f22f0$05c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Indemnity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > > [snip] > >>An argument that *does* hold water is that the law sometimes >>identifies irregularities, but provides no mechanism to redress >>damage. One such case is that of the use of an "illegal" (by >>regulation) convention. This is a violation of Law 40D, under >>which the regulation will have been made. But neither that law >>nor any other law tells the TD to adjust the score if the >>violation happens. So the TD could use 12A1 to do so. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Under the 2007 Lawbook the TD would not need Law 12A1, since the > 2007 Law 40B5 empowers the TD to award an adjusted score. > Grattan Endicott quibbles: +=+ requires the TD to award an adjusted score +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 24 13:49:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:49:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <06a901c8460f$7af2ded0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <002001c84633$136fce70$a8d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>Makes perfect sense to me but it is written >>where exactly in the laws? > > 2007 Law 86A: > > When the Director chooses to award an artificial > adjusted score of average plus or average minus > in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus > 3 IMPs respectively. **Subject to approval by > the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by > the Tournament Organizer.** Sure - I know that the Tournament Organizer may come up with any method of scoring and of computing the average plus. I know that the Tournament Organizer may further define what exactly is meant by the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs, BAM or whatever. But when one uses a phrase "a 60% session (or the equivalent in IMPs)" without any further clarification one creates something that is semantically null. +=+ I am not quite sure, Konrad, what is the point that you are trying to make. We are aware that in matters of scoring various authorities prefer to follow their several ideas. The laws are framed loosely in order to allow of that. The default position is that 60% on a board in pairs is to be regarded for the purpose as the equivalent of +3 imps in team play; if they are not imposing some alternative value regulators or Directors in charge normally reiterate this. Where is the problem in this? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Dec 24 19:29:19 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <06a901c8460f$7af2ded0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <002001c84633$136fce70$a8d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <06e201c8465a$e64658b0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: > +=+ I am not quite sure, Konrad, what is the point > that you are trying to make. We are aware that in > matters of scoring various authorities prefer to follow > their several ideas. The laws are framed loosely in > order to allow of that. The default position is that > 60% on a board in pairs is to be regarded for the > purpose as the equivalent of +3 imps in team play; > if they are not imposing some alternative value > regulators or Directors in charge normally reiterate > this. Where is the problem in this? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The problem is that +3 IMPs = 60% of a board isn't very helpful when trying to determine the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs. What it boils down to is that the Tournament Organizer will have to devise his own method anyway. So without the remarks in paranthesis the Tournament Organizer would have to devise his own method of how to calculate the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs. With the remarks in paranthesis the Tournament Organizer has to devise his own method of how to calculate the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs. So the remark in paranthesis makes no difference, it is useless. And sentences that are sematically null should be avoided in laws. Much like the following sentense in the Systems Policy: "A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. " Have you ever needed a special permission to prepare a written defense to anything? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepsze zdjecia listopada! Zobacz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca8 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 25 01:27:59 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:27:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <06a901c8460f$7af2ded0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4><002001c84633$136fce70$a8d0403e@Mildred> <06e201c8465a$e64658b0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <006c01c8468e$7650db50$f4c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: > +=+ I am not quite sure, Konrad, what is the point > that you are trying to make. We are aware that in > matters of scoring various authorities prefer to follow > their several ideas. The laws are framed loosely in > order to allow of that. The default position is that > 60% on a board in pairs is to be regarded for the > purpose as the equivalent of +3 imps in team play; > if they are not imposing some alternative value > regulators or Directors in charge normally reiterate > this. Where is the problem in this? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The problem is that +3 IMPs = 60% of a board isn't very helpful when trying to determine the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs. What it boils down to is that the Tournament Organizer will have to devise his own method anyway. +=+ I have a curiously simplistic mind that tells me I will have a 60% session if I score 60% on each of its component boards. ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 25 11:11:24 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:11:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> Message-ID: <002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com> [Kojak] It [L12A1] is pure and simply there to let the bridge world know that there may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken care of by the rest of the laws. [DALB] Having earlier said that there cannot be infractions that have not yet been thought of, I am abashed to report a case that has come to my attention from Bridge Base Online - one of several such cases from online bridge. With a few tricks remaining in the play of a hand, North left the table never to return, probably due to some problem with his internet connection or some domestic crisis. The outcome of the hand was in no doubt: East-West were going to make eleven tricks in four spades for an average result, so there was no question of North having left in order to avoid obtaining a poor score. But I am informed that there are players who do leave the table when their result is about to be unfavourable, feigning connection problems or inventing some other reason for their departure. The question was: what should the Director do about the result on the board? Strictly speaking, there was no result on the board and there never will be; play of the board was not completed. The obvious thing to do would be to assign a score of 650 to East-West (who petitioned the Director for a score of 680, which is why the case arose in the first place, though such a score could not be obtained by rational play). But the Laws do not appear to permit such a course: C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. In this case, awarding average plus to East-West would not have caused any problem, but if the final contract had been doubled, it might have done. My suggestion was to use L12A1: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. since it seemed to me that the irregularity of leaving the table and not coming back was a violation of law against which the Laws themselves do not provide indemnity (there is no actual prescribed penalty, or rectification, for paying insufficient attention to the game - or in this case, ceasing to pay any attention at all to the game). The question from the legal point of view is of course: may the Director award an assigned adjusted score if no result can be obtained following an irregularity? Law 12C appears to indicate that he may not, but that flies in the face of common sense in the circumstances I have described. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 25 13:37:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:37:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com> Message-ID: <000001c846f2$f6734ac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn .......... > Having earlier said that there cannot be infractions that have not yet > been > thought of, I am abashed to report a case that has come to my attention > from > Bridge Base Online - one of several such cases from online bridge. > > With a few tricks remaining in the play of a hand, North left the table > never to return, probably due to some problem with his internet connection > or some domestic crisis. The outcome of the hand was in no doubt: East- > West > were going to make eleven tricks in four spades for an average result, so > there was no question of North having left in order to avoid obtaining a > poor score. But I am informed that there are players who do leave the > table > when their result is about to be unfavourable, feigning connection > problems > or inventing some other reason for their departure. > > The question was: what should the Director do about the result on the > board? > Strictly speaking, there was no result on the board and there never will > be; > play of the board was not completed. The obvious thing to do would be to > assign a score of 650 to East-West (who petitioned the Director for a > score > of 680, which is why the case arose in the first place, though such a > score > could not be obtained by rational play). But the Laws do not appear to > permit such a course: > > C. Awarding an Adjusted Score > > 1. Artificial Score > > When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director > awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the > irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in > pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a > contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) > to > a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for > pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. > > 2. Assigned Score > > When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result > actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending > side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was > at > all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may > be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score > prior > to matchpointing. > > In this case, awarding average plus to East-West would not have caused any > problem, but if the final contract had been doubled, it might have done. > My > suggestion was to use L12A1: > > The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that > these > Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the > particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. > > since it seemed to me that the irregularity of leaving the table and not > coming back was a violation of law against which the Laws themselves do > not > provide indemnity (there is no actual prescribed penalty, or > rectification, > for paying insufficient attention to the game - or in this case, ceasing > to > pay any attention at all to the game). > > The question from the legal point of view is of course: may the Director > award an assigned adjusted score if no result can be obtained following an > irregularity? Law 12C appears to indicate that he may not, but that flies > in > the face of common sense in the circumstances I have described. My immediate reaction is to apply Law 68B: North has abandoned his hand and thereby conceded the remaining tricks. Now South can "immediately object" to this concession, but my ruling would be to award East/West all remaining tricks except tricks that could not be lost for North/South by any "normal" play. Unless North can show an acceptable reason for leaving the party he should be denied participation in online bridge for a significant period of time. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 25 14:15:42 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:15:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. References: <000001c846f2$f6734ac0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000e01c846f8$40e36fe0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > > Unless North can show an acceptable reason for leaving the party he should > be denied participation in online bridge for a significant period of time. This on BCL, at least, is bollocks. Conn problems are the normal reason for leaving. But we do police this site very thoroughly. We would expect the person who left to inform us that they had a conn problem, a statement we accept; and we'd award 650 which is the 12C2 adjustment. cheers John, CTD BCL! > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 25 14:34:18 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:34:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000e01c846f8$40e36fe0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000101c846fa$d9e4adb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John Probst > > Unless North can show an acceptable reason for leaving the party he > should > > be denied participation in online bridge for a significant period of > time. > > This on BCL, at least, is bollocks. Conn problems are the normal > reason for leaving. But we do police this site very thoroughly. > We would expect the person who left to inform us that they had > a conn problem, a statement we accept; > and we'd award 650 which is the 12C2 adjustment. cheers John, Well, connection problem is indeed an acceptable reason ! ? ! I can't help feeling that you just confirmed my idea on how to handle such situations? And Merry Xmas! Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 25 22:33:44 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:33:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <06a901c8460f$7af2ded0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4><002001c84633$136fce70$a8d0403e@Mildred> <06e201c8465a$e64658b0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <003101c8473d$d7697910$72d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sentences that are semantically null should be avoided in laws. Much like the following sentence in the Systems Policy: "A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. " Have you ever needed a special permission to prepare a written defense to anything? ........................................................................................ +=+ I think the whole of the statement should be considered if it is to be criticized. It says: "A pair may prepare written defences against the 'Brown Sticker' elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of the segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' convention card." I regard the further statements that are dependent on the first as conveying the real objects of the regulation. In the future, under the 2007 Laws 40B2(a) and 40B2(b), the regulating authority no longer needs the device that treats the defence as part of the opponents' system card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 26 00:36:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000101c843f1$e6162750$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Yes, if your understanding was the intention I do not understand > why they did not write in Law 68B2 something like: "Play continues > unless there also was a claim in which case C and D following apply > to the claim". There was no reason for them to use unnecessary verbiage. We already know that play ceases on a claim and nothing changes that so nothing extra is written. Claims cannot be cancelled. TDs are required to rule. It's not difficult so just do it. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 26 00:36:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000201c843f3$66a7b540$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > We have a history of cooperating, not fighting once decisions are > made in an orderly way, and we try to keep to the matter in > discussions rather than to discuss person and nation. > > Do I have to say any more? You are missing the point. The EBL is an administrative body not a law-interpreting/setting one. There is no "fight" between an NA and the EBL over EBL interpretations because they are, quite simply, irrelevant at NA level. It is "orderly" for a European NA to set its regulations without considering EBL regs. You are, albeit only by implication, giving credence to the erroneous idea that the EBL has some responsibility for interpreting the laws. And yes, you should say outright that the Norwegian NA is independent of any attempt by the EBL to assert authority over Norwegian competitions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 26 00:36:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000101c846fa$d9e4adb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Unless North can show an acceptable reason for leaving the > > party he should be denied participation in online bridge for a > > significant period of time. > > Well, connection problem is indeed an acceptable reason ! ? ! > > I can't help feeling that you just confirmed my idea on how to > handle such situations? Perhaps - but players can seldom *show* evidence of a conn problem (which may be down to a rogue router somewhere out there). Thus, except in repeat offence cases, players are permitted to play without having to give any evidence at all. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 26 01:22:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:22:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c84755$56f6b460$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > Yes, if your understanding was the intention I do not understand > > why they did not write in Law 68B2 something like: "Play continues > > unless there also was a claim in which case C and D following apply > > to the claim". > > There was no reason for them to use unnecessary verbiage. We already > know that play ceases on a claim and nothing changes that so nothing > extra is written. > > Claims cannot be cancelled. TDs are required to rule. It's not > difficult so just do it. Hold it right there: You are saying that if a defender claims some but not all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects to the (implied) concession then the concession but not the claim is cancelled and then as a consequence: Play ceases because of the claim that is still in force Play continues because the concession is cancelled as ordered in Law 68B2 Which way shall we have it? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 26 01:28:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:28:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c84756$4791dbc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > We have a history of cooperating, not fighting once decisions are > > made in an orderly way, and we try to keep to the matter in > > discussions rather than to discuss person and nation. > > > > Do I have to say any more? > > You are missing the point. The EBL is an administrative body not a > law-interpreting/setting one. There is no "fight" between an NA and the > EBL over EBL interpretations because they are, quite simply, irrelevant > at NA level. It is "orderly" for a European NA to set its regulations > without considering EBL regs. > > You are, albeit only by implication, giving credence to the erroneous > idea that the EBL has some responsibility for interpreting the laws. > And yes, you should say outright that the Norwegian NA is independent of > any attempt by the EBL to assert authority over Norwegian competitions. Maybe you are right that EBL has no power to issue any interpretation of the laws. That did not stop them from issuing the very valuable work by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen in 1992: "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987". It further appears from that work that EBL indeed has a Laws Committee so I have some problem understanding your comment that their issues are irrelevant at NA level? I prefer to take their issues as recommendations to their subordinate NAs. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 28 03:36:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200712211306.AA11800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 2007 Law 40B3: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. Bob Geller: [snip] >EXAMPLE 1: I open 1NT, and LHO doubles. Partner asks the >meaning of the double (penalty or takeout). We vary our >treatments according to the opponents answer. > >EXAMPLE 2. I open 1NT, and LHO bids 2C. Partner asks the >meaning. We vary our treatments according to the opponents >answer (i.e. whether 2C shows majors, or an unspecified one >suiter, or ....). [snip] >But my question is, what sort of "varying one's understanding >according to the answer to a question" did the drafters have >in mind? Can anyone provide a good example. Thanks. > >Best, >Bob Richard Hills: The key issue is the phrase "vary its understandings". In both of Bob Geller's examples there are pre-existing alternative partnership understandings, one of which will come into effect dependent on which of two possibilities the opponents' partnership understandings are. So there is no "varying" in Bob Geller's examples. In my opinion Law 40B3 talks about interrogations, not directly about the opponents' partnership understandings. For example, pard opens 1NT 15-18, but when his RHO overcalls pard chooses to conduct a lengthy enquiry about RHO's overcall, thus varying your understandings to state that pard actually has 19 hcp. For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid. Pard gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten. You have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI restrictions). Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 28 09:13:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:13:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4774B03B.3050305@skynet.be> I resent this, and it's something I've warned Richard about before. A: the personal attack is totally unnecessary - and before he apologizes as to it not being meant as a personal attack, I've felt it as such. B: the thing being said is totally wrong. L40B3 disallows varying understandings. Richard accuses the DwS of vayring explanations. I don't see how this can be forbidden by a law that has nothing to do with it. I demand an apology. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid. Pard > gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten. You > have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings > to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later > explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI > restrictions). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 28 11:01:30 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:01:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <07e701c84938$9ef239d0$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> > For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid. Pard > gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten. You > have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings > to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later > explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI > restrictions). De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings. You give different explanations to prevent UI transmission but you still bid as if you haven't heard partner's explanations. You keep bidding according to your systemic understanding, this doesn't change. Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 28 11:17:29 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:17:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com> Message-ID: <07eb01c8493a$daade760$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > [Kojak] > > It [L12A1] is pure and simply there to let the bridge world know that > there > may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken > care of by the rest of the laws. > > [DALB] > > Having earlier said that there cannot be infractions that have not yet > been > thought of, I am abashed to report a case that has come to my attention > from > Bridge Base Online - one of several such cases from online bridge. > > With a few tricks remaining in the play of a hand, North left the table > never to return, probably due to some problem with his internet connection > or some domestic crisis. The outcome of the hand was in no doubt: > East-West > were going to make eleven tricks in four spades for an average result, so > there was no question of North having left in order to avoid obtaining a > poor score. But I am informed that there are players who do leave the > table > when their result is about to be unfavourable, feigning connection > problems > or inventing some other reason for their departure. > > The question was: what should the Director do about the result on the > board? [SNIP] > The question from the legal point of view is of course: may the Director > award an assigned adjusted score if no result can be obtained following an > irregularity? Law 12C appears to indicate that he may not, but that flies > in > the face of common sense in the circumstances I have described. David, If comparing IMPs and mathpoints was comparing apples and screwdrivers then comparing F2F bridge and online bridge is comparing screwdrivers with drivers. Any application of the current laws to online bridge is nonsensical per se - current laws contain a vast number of laws that become sheer idiocy when applied to online game ("Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13", "Each player shall restore his original 13 cards to the pocket", "Director makes search for the missing card", alerting laws etc), there are tons of pages that define procedures for situations that don't have a remote chance of coming up in online bridge (revoke laws, laws about calls/plays out of turn, insufficient bids etc.) while you won't find a single word there about situation that arises several times during every tournament ie. a player losing Internet connection. Online bridge requires laws of its own - separate laws. It is simply a different sport - much like beach volleyball has a different set of laws from volleyball and rugby has a rulebook that is different from the one of the American football even though there are similarities between these sports.. That a touchdown followed by a successful conversion is 7 points in both doesn't mean it makes sense to apply rules from one to another. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 28 14:52:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines References: <000a01c84756$4791dbc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000a01c84958$e0fb62a0$20d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] proposal - normal lines >> > It further appears from that work that EBL indeed has > a Laws Committee. > +=+ At present the EBL Laws Committee comprises Ton Kooijman Max Bavin Antonio Riccardi Maurizio Di Sacco Grattan Endicott The committee, which has not met for some years, enjoys the service of Herman De Wael as Secretary. There is a minute of the WBFLC acknowledging that Zonal Authorities provide interim interpretations of the Laws where there is no WBFLC interpretation until the WBFLC interprets the law in a meeting. +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 28 17:26:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <07eb01c8493a$daade760$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com> <07eb01c8493a$daade760$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <0942DB90-DC45-4767-87D9-EFF5C636537F@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Any application of the current laws to online > bridge is nonsensical per se *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws. Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF - in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version. Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep asking whether such-and-such action is legal? From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 28 17:59:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:59:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com><002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com><07eb01c8493a$daade760$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <0942DB90-DC45-4767-87D9-EFF5C636537F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c84973$0d166fa0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> Any application of the current laws to online >> bridge is nonsensical per se > > *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws. > > Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF - > in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version. > > Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position > that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are > "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep > asking whether such-and-such action is legal? There's absolutely no reason why online software should actually provide you with 13 cards; no reason why insufficient bids shouldn't be permitted, nor revokes allowed. If anything it detracts from the charm of the game that mechanical errors aren't permitted. The trouble is that it's far harder to write software that works this way. Imagine autoruling an insufficient BOOT when an opponent hits the TD button :) cheers John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 18:34:16 2007 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:34:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000601c84973$0d166fa0$0701a8c0@john> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <002001c846de$81e2af20$85a80d60$@com> <07eb01c8493a$daade760$823a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <0942DB90-DC45-4767-87D9-EFF5C636537F@rochester.rr.com> <000601c84973$0d166fa0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <20071228123416.0c59415a@linuxbox> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:59:46 -0000 "John Probst" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > >> Any application of the current laws to online > >> bridge is nonsensical per se > > > > *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws. > > > > Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF > > - in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version. > > > > Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position > > that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are > > "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep > > asking whether such-and-such action is legal? > > There's absolutely no reason why online software should actually > provide you with 13 cards; no reason why insufficient bids shouldn't > be permitted, nor revokes allowed. If anything it detracts from the > charm of the game that mechanical errors aren't permitted. The > trouble is that it's far harder to write software that works this > way. Imagine autoruling an insufficient BOOT when an opponent hits > the TD button :) Absolutely. I gave Stevenson 100-1 on a 1 Euro bet some years ago that an online site that *deliberately* permitted such errors wouldn't appear within 10 years (there are probably 2 or 3 years left on the bet, AFAIR). Nobody in their right minds is going to invest the time and money into writing the code to allow such errors, and then invest further time and money in writing code to provide corrections. As regards the WBF's attempt at online laws, Ed hits the nail right on the head, "Many of them are identical to the f2f version". Yes, many online players *DO* want to play a fair game, but (IMO) by leaving all the irrelevant stuff in, such as dealing the cards, incorrect number of cards, revokes, insufficient bids, etc, etc, the WBF ensured that VERY few online players are going to be bothered actually reading those laws, and as John says and I fully agree, it's far harder to write the code for the online site to permit such errors rather than to prevent them in the first place. I've seen more than 11,000 players on Bridge Base Online at one time, and that was **NOT** with a VuGraph in operation. Can you imagine how many volunteer TDs you'd need for that lot if the game were played in accordance with the F2F laws? For example, any set of laws which says that play must cease after a claim is simply not workable. You *don't* have the coffee-housing trick of a deliberate bad claim in order to see which opponent turns it down, because you don't know (on BBO) which opponent rejected the claim. The simplest way of resolving it is to do as happens, the hand is played out, defenders can see all four hands, declarer can still only see his hand and dummy's. Defender claims work in reverse, of course. No TD, and very little extra coding, required. Brian. -- From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 28 22:45:33 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 28 Dec 2007 22:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: <20071228214533.365D4313C92@f48.poczta.interia.pl> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:59:46 -0000 > "John Probst" wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:26 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > > >> Any application of the current laws to online > > >> bridge is nonsensical per se > > > > > > *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws. > > > > > > Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF > > > - in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version. > > > > > > Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position > > > that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are > > > "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep > > > asking whether such-and-such action is legal? > > > > There's absolutely no reason why online software should actually > > provide you with 13 cards; no reason why insufficient bids shouldn't > > be permitted, nor revokes allowed. If anything it detracts from the > > charm of the game that mechanical errors aren't permitted. The > > trouble is that it's far harder to write software that works this > > way. Imagine autoruling an insufficient BOOT when an opponent hits > > the TD button :) > > Absolutely. I gave Stevenson 100-1 on a 1 Euro bet some years ago Me, too! -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wejdz do swiata wojny wampirow! http://link.interia.pl/f1cb4 From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 28 22:48:44 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 28 Dec 2007 22:48:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. Message-ID: <20071228214844.E3928313C90@f48.poczta.interia.pl> > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Any application of the current laws to online > > bridge is nonsensical per se > > *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws. > > Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF - > in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version. Many laws in volleyball and beach volleyball are identical. Does this mean that beach volleyball umpires are supposed to apply regular volleyball rules rather than beach volleyball rules? > > Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position > that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are > "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep > asking whether such-and-such action is legal? > I'm not one of them. I'm not arguing for "anything goes". But the laws simply cannot be the same for these two sports for reasons other have mentioned already. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7 From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Dec 29 22:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <007f01c84548$613a9450$4aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ We removed the words 'or claim' in Shanghai. I did > not understand at that time that we were undermining the > requirement for play to continue after partner's objection > to a concession, whether or not the concession was the > complement of a claim. So interpretation is required and > until this is provided formally the opinion of any one of > us is no more than a personal opinion. Fret not. The laws themselves have always upheld the idea that objecting to a complementary concession cannot cancel the underlying claim. The change undermines nothing of value but instead provides a sane and workable approach to ruling. From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 30 00:21:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:21:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c84a71$8efa0910$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ We removed the words 'or claim' in Shanghai. I did > > not understand at that time that we were undermining the > > requirement for play to continue after partner's objection > > to a concession, whether or not the concession was the > > complement of a claim. So interpretation is required and > > until this is provided formally the opinion of any one of > > us is no more than a personal opinion. > > Fret not. The laws themselves have always upheld the idea that objecting > to a complementary concession cannot cancel the underlying claim. The > change undermines nothing of value but instead provides a sane and > workable approach to ruling. "Always"? Before 2007 the laws were silent on this question but we have a WBFLC decision from 2001: 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. This decision appears to having been carried forward into the new laws which explicitly states that play shall continue when the other defender immediately objects to the concession made or implied with a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks. Law 68B1 explicitly states that a claim of some but not all remaining tricks is a concession of the remaining tricks. How can then a situation develop where a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks still is a claim but no longer a concession? I must ask you to explain how you will in detail handle a partial claim which is immediately objected to by the claimer's partner? Your logic requires you to rule on the claimed tricks without any further play of the cards (Law 68D) and to have the play continue to decide the outcome of the conceded tricks for which the concession was objected to (Law 68B2). You will have to cater for situations where the claimed tricks precede, follow or are intermixed with the conceded tricks. I simply cannot see any way we can uphold the claim and rule on this while nullifying the concession (only) and at the same time letting the play continue as specified in law 68B2. Sven From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Dec 26 18:34:41 2007 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:34:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in imps Message-ID: <1D89B9D4654F4B9FA6F13FF4450A09A9@Hassedator> A 60% session is 60% of the VP? If that is 17 or 18 VP could be discussed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071226/8990c289/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 11:30:07 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:30:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 60% session in imps In-Reply-To: <1D89B9D4654F4B9FA6F13FF4450A09A9@Hassedator> References: <1D89B9D4654F4B9FA6F13FF4450A09A9@Hassedator> Message-ID: On 26/12/2007, Hans-Olof Hall?n wrote: > > A 60% session is 60% of the VP? If that is 17 or 18 VP could be discussed. Ahem. It can't. :-) When a draw is 15 (that is 50%) and maximum is 25 (100%) 60% equals 17. Adding 5 VPs to any score in the VP scale to avoid negative scores doesn't change the value of average+, which is still 2 VP more than a draw. Logically a bye should thus be awarded 17 VP instead of 18. Anyway, we've changed this to 18 in Norway too a couple of years ago. :-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 30 11:51:58 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:51:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim Message-ID: <002d01c84ad2$1f4544c0$97ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ We removed the words 'or claim' in Shanghai. I did >> > not understand at that time that we were undermining the >> > requirement for play to continue after partner's objection >> > to a concession, whether or not the concession was the >> > complement of a claim. So interpretation is required and >> > until this is provided formally the opinion of any one of >> > us is no more than a personal opinion. >> >> (Tim) >> Fret not. The laws themselves have always upheld the >> idea that objecting to a complementary concession cannot >> cancel the underlying claim. The change undermines nothing >> of value but instead provides a sane and workable approach >> to ruling. > > (Sven) > "Always"? > > Before 2007 the laws were silent on this question but we > have a WBFLC decision from 2001: > > 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a > defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement > of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately > objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has > occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been > made. After the Director has been summoned play continues > and Law 16 may apply. > > This decision appears to having been carried forward into the > new laws which explicitly states that play shall continue when > the other defender immediately objects to the concession made > or implied with a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks. > Law 68B1 explicitly states that a claim of some but not all > remaining tricks is a concession of the remaining tricks. > > How can then a situation develop where a claim of some but > not all the remaining tricks still is a claim but no longer a > concession? > > I must ask you to explain how you will in detail handle a partial > claim which is immediately objected to by the claimer's partner? > > Your logic requires you to rule on the claimed tricks without > any further play of the cards (Law 68D) and to have the play > continue to decide the outcome of the conceded tricks for > which the concession was objected to (Law 68B2). > > You will have to cater for situations where the claimed tricks > precede, follow or are intermixed with the conceded tricks. > > I simply cannot see any way we can uphold the claim and > rule on this while nullifying the concession (only) and at the > same time letting the play continue as specified in law 68B2. > > Sven > +=+ I would say that the objection to the concession is also an objection to the claim since the two are interdependent and inseparable. An exit for anyone who argues as Tim does could be a concept that the continued play is taken as a subset of Law 70D3. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 30 15:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c84a71$8efa0910$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Before 2007 the laws were silent on this question The current laws are far from silent on the issue. L68A says "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." L68B includes "...Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred" L68D says "After any claim *OR* concession, play ceases." Thus even if a concession is cancelled play must cease if there is a claim. > but we have a WBFLC decision from 2001: > 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of > a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining > tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the > concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the > same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has > been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. A minute which says *absolutely nothing* about when a *claim* is made thereby conceding the complement. The two situations are different. If the claim exists *solely* as contingent on a concession then the cancelling of the concession does indeed cause the residual claim to disappear. But where the concession is residual to a claim it would interfere with the nature of causality to rule that cancelling a concession also cancels a prior claim. Grattan may not have realised why the WBFLC were wise enough to take the words "or claim" out of L68B2 but we should be grateful that his ignorance resulted in his non-interference. > This decision appears to having been carried forward into the new > laws which explicitly states that play shall continue when the other > defender immediately objects to the concession made or implied with > a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks. No, it merely makes provisions for play to continue when appropriate. > Law 68B1 explicitly states that a claim of > some but not all remaining tricks is a concession of the remaining > tricks. L68b2 says "Regardless of 1 preceding,..". If it was intended to cancel an explicit claim it would need to read "Regardless of *A and 1* preceding,.." Thus L68b2 requires that play continues *only* if there has been neither claim nor concession. (note that we disregard the "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" when applying L68b2). L68b2 does not modify L68A or L68D. > How can then a situation develop where a claim of some but not all > the remaining tricks still is a claim but no longer a concession? Because we are ruling *REGARDLESS* of L68b1. If we determine that a claim has occurred it doesn't matter whether or not there has been a concession - or how a concession is defined. Play MUST cease. > I must ask you to explain how you will in detail handle a partial > claim which is immediately objected to by the claimer's partner? The same way I handle declarer's claim when objected to by dummy (or indeed any other objection to a claim). I judge how many tricks each side would have made and resolve doubtful points against claimer. The judgement may be trivial, it may be complex, just as any claim+objection ruling may be. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 30 15:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] proposal - normal lines In-Reply-To: <000a01c84756$4791dbc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Maybe you are right that EBL has no power to issue any > interpretation of the laws. That did not stop them from issuing > the very valuable work by Grattan > Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen in 1992: "Commentary on the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987". The EBL can issue suggestions and recommendations to TDs and member states - some of which may indeed be helpful. However, TDs must recognise that such suggestions do not have the power of law and do permit the TD to abdicate responsibility for administering the law as written and (perhaps later interpreted) by the WBF. > I have some problem understanding your comment that their issues are > irrelevant at NA level? They are irrelevant at NA level to the extent that there is no obligation in law for the NA to look at them. I'd guess that most (all?) NAs would choose to look but that's not a legal issue. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 30 16:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: <002d01c84ad2$1f4544c0$97ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I would say that the objection to the concession is also > an objection to the claim since the two are interdependent > and inseparable. An exit for anyone who argues as Tim does > could be a concept that the continued play is taken as a > subset of Law 70D3. ~ G ~ +=+ They are neither interdependent nor inseparable (or why do we have separate laws?). Some claims contain implicit concessions, some concessions contain implicit claims but many claims do not involve a a concession and many concessions do not involve a claim. Also common are situations where both claim and concession are explicit and stated separately. A typical example is West saying "OK I get my two hearts and I give you the rest (other 3)." East says "What about my ace of spades?" There is *no way* that East is objecting to West's claim of two hearts. He is simply objecting to the subsequent concession of the last 3 tricks. Not that this actually matters. Even if we rule that an objection to a concession is also an objection to the prior claim the laws give us no grounds to say that an objection *cancels* a claim. There is a claim, which cannot legally be cancelled. *PLAY CEASES*. We have a claim, we have an objection to the claim, we rule. If there is a "normal" line which leads to 3 tricks to declarer then 3 tricks are given. If there is no such normal line we award an additional trick (possibly tricks) to the defence. In practice this isn't going to make any difference to the result had we allowed play to continue (e.g. had there been no claim but instead a concession of "OK, you get the last three"). The strictures of playing on under UI restrictions (subject to adjustment) and the assessment of "normal" lines are going to give the same result. Yes, it's law 70D3 but we don't have continued play, we have East (and possibly NSW) telling us how play would have continued. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 30 17:32:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:32:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c84b01$9aa64ea0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads On rereading before posting I see that there are many repetitions. Therefore I have taken the liberty to remove the first part leaving only the essentials. ................. > Thus L68b2 requires that play continues *only* if there has been neither > claim nor concession. (note that we disregard the "a claim of some number > of tricks is a concession of the remainder" when applying L68b2). There is no foundation for disregarding "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" when applying L68b2. Law 68A says "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." A concession of some but not all of the remaining tricks is clearly such a statement referring to the tricks not conceded and therefore a claim of those tricks in addition to being a concession. Law 68B1 specifically says that a claim of some tricks is a concession of the remainder. So (except when a claim or a concession refers to all the remaining tricks) there is always a claim together with a concession and there is always a concession together with a claim. They are inseparable. > L68b2 does not modify L68A or L68D. There is no need to modify L68A. What Law 68B2 does is to void a concession made by a defender in certain cases with the consequence that L68D no longer applies. If L68D is to apply then the words "Play continues" in L68B should not have been there. > > > How can then a situation develop where a claim of some but not all > > the remaining tricks still is a claim but no longer a concession? > > Because we are ruling *REGARDLESS* of L68b1. If we determine that a > claim has occurred it doesn't matter whether or not there has been a > concession - or how a concession is defined. Play MUST cease. There is always a claim with a concession unless the concession is for all the remaining tricks. That is not the only situation covered by Law 68B2. > > I must ask you to explain how you will in detail handle a partial > > claim which is immediately objected to by the claimer's partner? > > The same way I handle declarer's claim when objected to by dummy (or > indeed any other objection to a claim). I judge how many tricks each > side would have made and resolve doubtful points against claimer. > > The judgement may be trivial, it may be complex, just as any > claim+objection ruling may be. So with four cards left I say to Declarer: "Two tricks to each of us" My partner immediately objects. Your ruling? (Do we or do we not play on?) Sven From schoderb at msn.com Sun Dec 30 19:09:03 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:09:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads understands what to do when a concession is made and the partner immediately objects. I agree with him. He has provided real examples of what to do according to the laws. I find it beyond belief that a TD would simply say there is no claim, and so just play on 'freely'. When objections arise they are because having heard the claim AND THE CONCESSION, the partner becomes aware the concession is faulty. The argument that claim" and "concession" are interdependent and synchronous is a semantics foray. To involve "a subset of Law 70D3" is specious. When I claim I say I will "take"; when I concede I say I will "give". The Laws clearly say that when I "give" my defending partner may immediately object. We have fours Laws - 69 to 71 dealing with these separate actions. I maintain that the WBFLC minute so often referred to was ill advised, wrong, and the result of misunderstanding of the applicable laws and the English language. To defend it repeatedly, in the face of the drafting committee's clearly intended action to return the law to reality is, to me, defending a discarded and wrong position. There were two other changes to Claims and Concessions that are important. 1. That a defender could not claim tricks in his hand which depend upon the as yet unplayed cards of his partner. (If partner discards his good King of Spades I can take all the remaining tricks} and, 2. In adjudicating a claim, the TD may NOW take into consideration any actions at the table after he/she was called. (Thanks to Maastricht) Otherwise I find these laws have served us well in hundreds or thousands of claims and concessions over many decades. I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that predate January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. Those involving TOTALLY unchanged laws in 2007 should continue to exist. Those affecting changed laws are irrelevant without new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of "administrative housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are being properly interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. Happy holidays to all. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I would say that the objection to the concession is also > > an objection to the claim since the two are interdependent > > and inseparable. An exit for anyone who argues as Tim does > > could be a concept that the continued play is taken as a > > subset of Law 70D3. ~ G ~ +=+ > > They are neither interdependent nor inseparable (or why do we have > separate laws?). Some claims contain implicit concessions, some > concessions contain implicit claims but many claims do not involve a a > concession and many concessions do not involve a claim. Also common are > situations where both claim and concession are explicit and stated > separately. A typical example is West saying "OK I get my two hearts and > I give you the rest (other 3)." East says "What about my ace of spades?" > > There is *no way* that East is objecting to West's claim of two hearts. > He is simply objecting to the subsequent concession of the last 3 tricks. > Not that this actually matters. Even if we rule that an objection to a > concession is also an objection to the prior claim the laws give us no > grounds to say that an objection *cancels* a claim. > > There is a claim, which cannot legally be cancelled. > *PLAY CEASES*. We have a claim, we have an objection to the claim, we > rule. If there is a "normal" line which leads to 3 tricks to declarer > then 3 tricks are given. If there is no such normal line we award an > additional trick (possibly tricks) to the defence. In practice this > isn't going to make any difference to the result had we allowed play to > continue (e.g. had there been no claim but instead a concession of "OK, > you get the last three"). The strictures of playing on under UI > restrictions (subject to adjustment) and the assessment of "normal" lines > are going to give the same result. > > Yes, it's law 70D3 but we don't have continued play, we have East (and > possibly NSW) telling us how play would have continued. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sun Dec 30 19:09:03 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:09:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads understands what to do when a concession is made and the partner immediately objects. I agree with him. He has provided real examples of what to do according to the laws. I find it beyond belief that a TD would simply say there is no claim, and so just play on 'freely'. When objections arise they are because having heard the claim AND THE CONCESSION, the partner becomes aware the concession is faulty. The argument that claim" and "concession" are interdependent and synchronous is a semantics foray. To involve "a subset of Law 70D3" is specious. When I claim I say I will "take"; when I concede I say I will "give". The Laws clearly say that when I "give" my defending partner may immediately object. We have fours Laws - 69 to 71 dealing with these separate actions. I maintain that the WBFLC minute so often referred to was ill advised, wrong, and the result of misunderstanding of the applicable laws and the English language. To defend it repeatedly, in the face of the drafting committee's clearly intended action to return the law to reality is, to me, defending a discarded and wrong position. There were two other changes to Claims and Concessions that are important. 1. That a defender could not claim tricks in his hand which depend upon the as yet unplayed cards of his partner. (If partner discards his good King of Spades I can take all the remaining tricks} and, 2. In adjudicating a claim, the TD may NOW take into consideration any actions at the table after he/she was called. (Thanks to Maastricht) Otherwise I find these laws have served us well in hundreds or thousands of claims and concessions over many decades. I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that predate January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. Those involving TOTALLY unchanged laws in 2007 should continue to exist. Those affecting changed laws are irrelevant without new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of "administrative housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are being properly interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. Happy holidays to all. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I would say that the objection to the concession is also > > an objection to the claim since the two are interdependent > > and inseparable. An exit for anyone who argues as Tim does > > could be a concept that the continued play is taken as a > > subset of Law 70D3. ~ G ~ +=+ > > They are neither interdependent nor inseparable (or why do we have > separate laws?). Some claims contain implicit concessions, some > concessions contain implicit claims but many claims do not involve a a > concession and many concessions do not involve a claim. Also common are > situations where both claim and concession are explicit and stated > separately. A typical example is West saying "OK I get my two hearts and > I give you the rest (other 3)." East says "What about my ace of spades?" > > There is *no way* that East is objecting to West's claim of two hearts. > He is simply objecting to the subsequent concession of the last 3 tricks. > Not that this actually matters. Even if we rule that an objection to a > concession is also an objection to the prior claim the laws give us no > grounds to say that an objection *cancels* a claim. > > There is a claim, which cannot legally be cancelled. > *PLAY CEASES*. We have a claim, we have an objection to the claim, we > rule. If there is a "normal" line which leads to 3 tricks to declarer > then 3 tricks are given. If there is no such normal line we award an > additional trick (possibly tricks) to the defence. In practice this > isn't going to make any difference to the result had we allowed play to > continue (e.g. had there been no claim but instead a concession of "OK, > you get the last three"). The strictures of playing on under UI > restrictions (subject to adjustment) and the assessment of "normal" lines > are going to give the same result. > > Yes, it's law 70D3 but we don't have continued play, we have East (and > possibly NSW) telling us how play would have continued. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 30 20:10:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:10:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000d01c84b01$9aa64ea0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c84b01$9aa64ea0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is always a claim with a concession unless the concession is > for all > the remaining tricks. That is not the only situation covered by Law > 68B2. Why not? From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 30 20:55:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:55:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c84b1d$de42be70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER If what is written by Kojak below reflects the true intention of WBFLC then Law 68B2 should be rewritten to clearly apply exclusively when a defender concedes all remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects. In its present form Law 68B2 applies also whenever a defender concedes some but not all remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects. But we cannot have laws that require play to continue (L68B2) because of the objection to the concession and at the same time require play to cease (L68D) because the objection does not affect the corresponding claim. The current state of this discussion makes it IMHO clear that WBFLC must without delay issue a message clarifying precisely which understanding of Law 68B2 shall apply. Maybe Kojak can answer this question which Tim has ignored till now: Is my statement as a defender to Declarer with four tricks left to play: "Two tricks to each of us" a claim or a concession, and how does Law 68B2 apply (if at all) if my partner immediately objects? Regards Sven > Tim West-Meads understands what to do when a concession is made and the > partner immediately objects. I agree with him. He has provided real > examples > of what to do according to the laws. I find it beyond belief that a TD > would simply say there is no claim, and so just play on 'freely'. When > objections arise they are because having heard the claim AND THE > CONCESSION, > the partner becomes aware the concession is faulty. > > The argument that claim" and "concession" are interdependent and > synchronous is a semantics foray. To involve "a subset of Law 70D3" is > specious. When I claim I say I will "take"; when I concede I say I will > "give". The Laws clearly say that when I "give" my defending partner may > immediately object. We have fours Laws - 69 to 71 dealing with these > separate actions. > > I maintain that the WBFLC minute so often referred to was ill advised, > wrong, and the result of misunderstanding of the applicable laws and the > English language. To defend it repeatedly, in the face of the drafting > committee's clearly intended action to return the law to reality is, to > me, > defending a discarded and wrong position. > > There were two other changes to Claims and Concessions that are important. > > 1. That a defender could not claim tricks in his hand which depend upon > the > as yet unplayed cards of his partner. (If partner discards his good King > of > Spades I can take all the remaining tricks} > > and, > > 2. In adjudicating a claim, the TD may NOW take into consideration any > actions at the table after he/she was called. (Thanks to Maastricht) > > Otherwise I find these laws have served us well in hundreds or thousands > of > claims and concessions over many decades. > > I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that > predate > January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. Those involving TOTALLY > unchanged laws in 2007 should continue to exist. Those affecting changed > laws are irrelevant without new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of > "administrative housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are being > properly interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. > > Happy holidays to all. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I would say that the objection to the concession is also > > > an objection to the claim since the two are interdependent > > > and inseparable. An exit for anyone who argues as Tim does > > > could be a concept that the continued play is taken as a > > > subset of Law 70D3. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > They are neither interdependent nor inseparable (or why do we have > > separate laws?). Some claims contain implicit concessions, some > > concessions contain implicit claims but many claims do not involve a a > > concession and many concessions do not involve a claim. Also common are > > situations where both claim and concession are explicit and stated > > separately. A typical example is West saying "OK I get my two hearts > and > > I give you the rest (other 3)." East says "What about my ace of > spades?" > > > > There is *no way* that East is objecting to West's claim of two hearts. > > He is simply objecting to the subsequent concession of the last 3 > tricks. > > Not that this actually matters. Even if we rule that an objection to a > > concession is also an objection to the prior claim the laws give us no > > grounds to say that an objection *cancels* a claim. > > > > There is a claim, which cannot legally be cancelled. > > *PLAY CEASES*. We have a claim, we have an objection to the claim, we > > rule. If there is a "normal" line which leads to 3 tricks to declarer > > then 3 tricks are given. If there is no such normal line we award an > > additional trick (possibly tricks) to the defence. In practice this > > isn't going to make any difference to the result had we allowed play to > > continue (e.g. had there been no claim but instead a concession of "OK, > > you get the last three"). The strictures of playing on under UI > > restrictions (subject to adjustment) and the assessment of "normal" > lines > > are going to give the same result. > > > > Yes, it's law 70D3 but we don't have continued play, we have East (and > > possibly NSW) telling us how play would have continued. > > > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 30 21:02:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:02:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c84b1e$da619730$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Dec 30, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > There is always a claim with a concession unless the > > concession is for all the remaining tricks. > > That is not the only situation covered by Law 68B2. > > Why not? Because Law 68B2 says "if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects"; it does not say "if a defender attempts to concede all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects". Compare that to the last sentence in Law 68B1: "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 30 21:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000d01c84b01$9aa64ea0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Thus L68b2 requires that play continues *only* if there has been > > neither claim nor concession. (note that we disregard the "a claim of > > some number > > of tricks is a concession of the remainder" when applying L68b2). > > There is no foundation for disregarding "a claim of some number of > tricks is a concession of the remainder" when applying L68b2. L68b2 requires us to rule "regardless of 1 preceding". > There is no need to modify L68A. What Law 68B2 does is to void a > concession made by a defender in certain cases with the consequence > that L68D no longer applies. Yes, the concession is voided. But if there was a claim that is NOT voided (and never can be). > If L68D is to apply then the words "Play continues" in L68B should > not have been there. The words are there because play continues if there as been *neither* claim nor concession. > There is always a claim with a concession unless the concession is > for all the remaining tricks. That is not the only situation covered > by Law 68B2. No, there a four possibilities. a) Claim with dependent/implicit concession (claim stands, objections are heard). b) Concession with implicit claim (concession is cancelled). c) Explicit claim AND concession (concession is cancelled but explicit claim stands). d) Concession was of all tricks (concession is cancelled) In a+c play MUST cease. In d) play must continue. In b) we are *guided* by the previous WBF minute that claims which exist *purely* as the contingency of a concession are cancelled alongside the concession. However, I take Kojak's point that the minute does not have the power of law here once the new laws come into force. (OK five, e) claim was for all tricks, but that one isn't relevant). > So with four cards left I say to Declarer: "Two tricks to each of > us" My partner immediately objects. > Your ruling? (Do we or do we not play on?) Of course you don't play on - there was an explicit claim for two tricks and *PLAY CEASES*. NOTHING partner does can cancel an explicit claim. Doubtless someone *can* come up with a form of words where it is ambiguous as to whether there was any explicit claim. As with any other borderline case I'll simply make a judgement as to whether or not the claim should be deemed explicit after i have questioned the players. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 30 23:06:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:06:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c84b30$43020b60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > No, there a four possibilities. > a) Claim with dependent/implicit concession (claim stands, objections are > heard). > b) Concession with implicit claim (concession is cancelled). > c) Explicit claim AND concession (concession is cancelled but explicit > claim stands). > d) Concession was of all tricks (concession is cancelled) There are only three different possibilities: 1: A claim of all remaining tricks 2: A concession of all remaining tricks 3: A simultaneous claim of some and concession of the other remaining tricks: A concession of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a claim because (quote L68A) "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks" A claim of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a concession because (quote L68B1): "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder". For these reasons any attempt to nullify only the concession part in alternative 3 is meaningless. You assert that Law 68B2 is only applicable to possibility 2 above, I assert that if that is the intention of the laws then Law 68B2 should begin with the words: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects,". (Compare this part of L68B2 with the last sentence in Law 68B1.) The fact that Law 68B2 uses the words "one or more tricks" rather than "all the remaining tricks" raises reasonable doubt about your assertion. An equally logical understanding of the new Law 68B2 in its present form is that when "no concession has occurred" (because of partner's objection) then neither has any claim occurred for the same reason. (The removal of the words "or claim" from L68B2 is not decisive as long as the words "one or more tricks" in the same law were not changed to "all remaining tricks".) As it is the instruction "Play continues" in L68B2 applies whenever a defender's partner objects to any concession made by that defender whether or not the concession implies a claim, an instruction that makes the laws self-contradicting unless the claim is void together with the concession. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 31 07:14:50 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:14:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] claim References: <000201c84b30$43020b60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002801c84b76$2ecc6370$26c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............ >> No, there a four possibilities. >> a) Claim with dependent/implicit concession (claim stands, objections are >> heard). >> b) Concession with implicit claim (concession is cancelled). >> c) Explicit claim AND concession (concession is cancelled but explicit >> claim stands). >> d) Concession was of all tricks (concession is cancelled) > > There are only three different possibilities: > > 1: A claim of all remaining tricks > > 2: A concession of all remaining tricks > > 3: A simultaneous claim of some and concession of the other remaining > tricks: > > A concession of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a claim > because (quote L68A) "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will > win > a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks" > > A claim of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a concession > because (quote L68B1): "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession > of > the remainder". > > For these reasons any attempt to nullify only the concession part in > alternative 3 is meaningless. > > You assert that Law 68B2 is only applicable to possibility 2 above, I > assert > that if that is the intention of the laws then Law 68B2 should begin with > the words: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede > all > the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects,". (Compare this > part of L68B2 with the last sentence in Law 68B1.) > > The fact that Law 68B2 uses the words "one or more tricks" rather than > "all > the remaining tricks" raises reasonable doubt about your assertion. > > An equally logical understanding of the new Law 68B2 in its present form > is > that when "no concession has occurred" (because of partner's objection) > then > neither has any claim occurred for the same reason. (The removal of the > words "or claim" from L68B2 is not decisive as long as the words "one or > more tricks" in the same law were not changed to "all remaining tricks".) > > As it is the instruction "Play continues" in L68B2 applies whenever a > defender's partner objects to any concession made by that defender whether > or not the concession implies a claim, an instruction that makes the laws > self-contradicting unless the claim is void together with the concession. > > Sven > +=+ I see nothing in the laws to change the principle enunciated by the WBF on 28th October 2001: "It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.". I believe that it was neither the intention nor the effect of the 2007 Laws that this simple procedure should continue in place. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 31 09:12:06 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:12:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. Message-ID: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: > Fret not. The laws themselves have always upheld the idea that > objecting to a complementary concession cannot cancel the underlying > claim. ton: I don't know who said this, but apart from Edgar Kaplan I don't know anybody with the status to justify such statement. And then I refer to 'always'; for the last ten years I am able to reject it myself. Of course the interpretation by the LC made in 2001 is still valid. Nothing in the new laws make it questionable. To be honest that decision was not needed either, there is only one way to read L68B1. Please read Sven's comment below and get silent. ton Sven: Before 2007 the laws were silent on this question but we have a WBFLC decision from 2001: 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. This decision appears to having been carried forward into the new laws which explicitly states that play shall continue when the other defender immediately objects to the concession made or implied with a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks. Law 68B1 explicitly states that a claim of some but not all remaining tricks is a concession of the remaining tricks. How can then a situation develop where a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks still is a claim but no longer a concession? I must ask you to explain how you will in detail handle a partial claim which is immediately objected to by the claimer's partner? Your logic requires you to rule on the claimed tricks without any further play of the cards (Law 68D) and to have the play continue to decide the outcome of the conceded tricks for which the concession was objected to (Law 68B2). You will have to cater for situations where the claimed tricks precede, follow or are intermixed with the conceded tricks. I simply cannot see any way we can uphold the claim and rule on this while nullifying the concession (only) and at the same time letting the play continue as specified in law 68B2. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 31 10:06:55 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:06:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> [GE] I believe that it was neither the intention nor the effect of the 2007 Laws that this simple procedure should not continue in place. I continue to maintain that when some tricks are claimed and others conceded this is one indivisible act; an objection to either the claim or the concession is an objection to both. Play continues as Law 68B2 requires (and may perhaps be viewed as evidence under Law 70D3). [DALB] It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word "concession" in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant. Curiously enough, the first contribution I can remember making to BLML was on the topic of whether a concession of some tricks was the "same thing as" or merely "part of" an implied claim of the remaining tricks. DWS kept saying that in those circumstances "a claim is a concession" meant that they were one and the same thing, but that was of course nonsense. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 11:03:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:03:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> Message-ID: <000001c84b94$63f3e370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn ............... > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the > word "concession" in L68B2. > Then, everyone will know what is meant. These very words were there until the last issue of the new laws when they were removed. Why they were removed is still unclear to me. > Curiously enough, the first contribution I can remember making to > BLML was on the topic of whether a concession of some tricks was > the "same thing as" or merely "part of" an implied claim of the > remaining tricks. DWS kept saying that in those circumstances > "a claim is a concession" meant that they were one and the same > thing, but that was of course nonsense. "Nonsense"? A concession of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a claim because (quote L68A) "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks" A claim of some of but not all the remaining tricks is also a concession because (quote L68B1): "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" So a statement like: "You get one trick" is of course a concession of one trick but simultaneously a claim of all but that single trick (L68A). And a statement like "I get one trick" is of course a claim of one trick but simultaneously a concession of all but that single trick (L68B1). Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 31 11:47:50 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:47:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000001c84b94$63f3e370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> <000001c84b94$63f3e370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000401c84b9a$9735ee80$c5a1cb80$@com> [SP] So a statement like: "You get one trick" is of course a concession of one trick but simultaneously a claim of all but that single trick (L68A). And a statement like "I get one trick" is of course a claim of one trick but simultaneously a concession of all but that single trick (L68B1). [DALB] With seven tricks remaining, a player says "I get two tricks and you get the other four." What has he done? Apart, of course, from miscounted. You see, you can't treat claims and concessions as if they were the same thing. It's nonsense. David Burn London, England From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Dec 31 11:50:47 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:50:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4778C987.1040904@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > 2007 Law 40B3: > > The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or > play following a question asked, a response to a question, or > any irregularity. > > Bob Geller: > > [snip] > >> EXAMPLE 1: I open 1NT, and LHO doubles. Partner asks the >> meaning of the double (penalty or takeout). We vary our >> treatments according to the opponents answer. >> >> EXAMPLE 2. I open 1NT, and LHO bids 2C. Partner asks the >> meaning. We vary our treatments according to the opponents >> answer (i.e. whether 2C shows majors, or an unspecified one >> suiter, or ....). > > [snip] > >> But my question is, what sort of "varying one's understanding >> according to the answer to a question" did the drafters have >> in mind? Can anyone provide a good example. Thanks. imho what they had in mind is the following: opponent opens 1D meaning hearts. you don't ask and double so it's a take-out of diamonds you ask then double: it's a take-out of hearts jpr >> >> Best, >> Bob > > Richard Hills: > > The key issue is the phrase "vary its understandings". > > In both of Bob Geller's examples there are pre-existing > alternative partnership understandings, one of which will come > into effect dependent on which of two possibilities the > opponents' partnership understandings are. So there is no > "varying" in Bob Geller's examples. > > In my opinion Law 40B3 talks about interrogations, not > directly about the opponents' partnership understandings. > > For example, pard opens 1NT 15-18, but when his RHO overcalls > pard chooses to conduct a lengthy enquiry about RHO's overcall, > thus varying your understandings to state that pard actually > has 19 hcp. > > For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid. Pard > gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten. You > have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings > to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later > explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI > restrictions). > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Governance & Standards Section > National Training Branch > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8439 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Dec 31 12:19:56 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:19:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000001c84b94$63f3e370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word > "concession" in L68B2. > Then, everyone will know what is meant. Sven: These very words were there until the last issue of the new laws when they were removed. Why they were removed is still unclear to me. ton: As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. When one starts the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to concede' ....., it looks rather strange to finish with ...'no claim has occurred', even when that is true in itself. Which probably was the reason not to have it in previous versions. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 31 12:36:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:36:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000401c84b9a$9735ee80$c5a1cb80$@com> References: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> <000001c84b94$63f3e370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <000401c84b9a$9735ee80$c5a1cb80$@com> Message-ID: <4778D456.6080209@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SP] > > So a statement like: "You get one trick" is of course a concession of one > trick but simultaneously a claim of all but that single trick (L68A). > > And a statement like "I get one trick" is of course a claim of one trick but > simultaneously a concession of all but that single trick (L68B1). > > [DALB] > > With seven tricks remaining, a player says "I get two tricks and you get the > other four." > > What has he done? Apart, of course, from miscounted. > > You see, you can't treat claims and concessions as if they were the same > thing. It's nonsense. > No David, what is nonsense is if you treat them as differently. If there are 7 tricks left and a player says "you get 3 tricks" or if he says "I get 4 tricks", those have to be exactly the same. Because the player means exactly the same thing. If a player thinks there are only 6 tricks out, and he says "I get 4 tricks", then he has miscounted and conceded 3 tricks. He will get the fifth only if all conditions thereto are satisfied. If a player thinks there are only 6 tricks out, and he says "You get 2 tricks", then he has claimed 5. That claim may well be faulty, because he only has 4 tricks, and it will be ruled upon. If the player says both, then his mistake is obvious. I would rule he only claimed 4 tricks. But to say that any or all of these statements do not constitute either a claim, or a concession, or even both, is to take things so far that nothing is a claim any more. I think these laws are clear. Don't muddy them. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From herman at hdw.be Mon Dec 31 12:39:14 2007 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:39:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 Message-ID: <4778D4E2.9080500@hdw.be> Yesterday, I made the following mistake (2 days, or 9 months, too early) Pnr Me 1Cl 1He 2NT 2Cl over 1NT, 2Cl is asking for distribution and strength. over 2NT, 3Cl is asking for distribution. Am I allowed, in the new laws, to substitute 2Cl for 3Cl? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 13:16:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:16:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000401c84b9a$9735ee80$c5a1cb80$@com> Message-ID: <000001c84ba6$fc924d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > So a statement like: "You get one trick" is of course a concession of one > trick but simultaneously a claim of all but that single trick (L68A). > > And a statement like "I get one trick" is of course a claim of one trick > but > simultaneously a concession of all but that single trick (L68B1). > > [DALB] > > With seven tricks remaining, a player says "I get two tricks and you get > the > other four." > > What has he done? Apart, of course, from miscounted. IMO his word "other" in the sentence makes this a claim of two tricks and a concession of the other five(!). A more interesting question is if he said for instance "three tricks to each of us". In that case I would have ruled neither claim nor concession until he presented a corrected statement. In the meantime I would consider his statement to be just another extraneous remark. > You see, you can't treat claims and concessions as if they were the same > thing. It's nonsense. Well, actually I do not say that they are the same thing, but I say that "You can't have one without the other" (sung in a different context). Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 13:26:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:26:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <200712311216.lBVCGlQR028332@mail28.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000101c84ba8$64cffb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of ton > > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word > > "concession" in L68B2. > > Then, everyone will know what is meant. > > Sven: > These very words were there until the last issue of the new laws when they > were removed. Why they were removed is still unclear to me. > > > ton: > As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. When one > starts > the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to concede' ....., it looks > rather strange to finish with ...'no claim has occurred', even when that > is > true in itself. Which probably was the reason not to have it in previous > versions. Thanks Ton, this sounds like a very plausible explanation. I guess that nobody had expected this subsequent discussion after such a trivial refinement of the language in the laws! 8-) And a happy new year from Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 31 13:23:43 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:23:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4778C987.1040904@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000601c84bae$1cb0f150$dec8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > 2007 Law 40B3: > > The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or > play following a question asked, a response to a question, or > any irregularity. > > Bob Geller: > > [snip] > >> EXAMPLE 1: I open 1NT, and LHO doubles. Partner asks the >> meaning of the double (penalty or takeout). We vary our >> treatments according to the opponents answer. >> >> EXAMPLE 2. I open 1NT, and LHO bids 2C. Partner asks the >> meaning. We vary our treatments according to the opponents >> answer (i.e. whether 2C shows majors, or an unspecified one >> suiter, or ....). > > [snip] > >> But my question is, what sort of "varying one's understanding >> according to the answer to a question" did the drafters have >> in mind? Can anyone provide a good example. Thanks. imho what they had in mind is the following: opponent opens 1D meaning hearts. you don't ask and double so it's a take-out of diamonds you ask then double: it's a take-out of hearts jpr >> >> Best, >> Bob > > Richard Hills: > > The key issue is the phrase "vary its understandings". > > In both of Bob Geller's examples there are pre-existing > alternative partnership understandings, one of which will come > into effect dependent on which of two possibilities the > opponents' partnership understandings are. So there is no > "varying" in Bob Geller's examples. > > In my opinion Law 40B3 talks about interrogations, not > directly about the opponents' partnership understandings. > > For example, pard opens 1NT 15-18, but when his RHO overcalls > pard chooses to conduct a lengthy enquiry about RHO's overcall, > thus varying your understandings to state that pard actually > has 19 hcp. > > For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid. Pard > gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten. You > have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings > to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later > explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI > restrictions). > +=+ In a sense Law 40B3 is a 'belt and braces' law. If there is a pre-announced agreement to change the meaning it is subject to regulation in the RA's discretion under 40B2(a). If there is an understanding, not announced, its use is in breach of Law 40A3. The purpose of 40B3 is to be explicit and not leave the matter to be educed from the operation of other laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 31 14:07:29 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:07:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. References: <4755DE690D85C92F@mail-8-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-8.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000701c84bae$1de46840$dec8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. > >> It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the >> word "concession" in L68B2. Then, everyone will know >> what is meant. > > Sven: > These very words were there until the last issue of the new > laws when they were removed. Why they were removed is > still unclear to me. > > > ton: > As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. > When one starts the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to > concede' ....., it looks rather strange to finish with ...'no claim > has occurred', even when that is true in itself. Which probably > was the reason not to have it in previous versions. > +=+ Readers will not have realized perhaps that in Shanghai, under the whip to complete its task, the DSC was faced with something like eighty matters of language to consider (some involving principles on which we did not have full agreement). So there was pressure and, like ton, I did not debate the omission of 'or claim' because I had no premonition that it would be argued subsequently as a change of the principle we had agreed in 2001. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Dec 31 14:31:07 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:31:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000401c84b9a$9735ee80$c5a1cb80$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] With seven tricks remaining, a player says "I get two tricks and you get the other four." What has he done? Apart, of course, from miscounted. You see, you can't treat claims and concessions as if they were the same thing. It's nonsense. David Burn London, England ton: Well, 'nonsense' is one the most used words in the beginning of this century. The least your example shows is the good reason partner may have to protest immediately. And to illustrate the other qualities another example: A defender with 4 tricks to go concedes 5 tricks. You see, you can't treat concesions and concessions as if they were the same thing. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 31 14:39:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000001c84ba6$fc924d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c84ba6$fc924d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4778F107.2040405@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > A more interesting question is if he said for instance "three tricks to each > of us". In that case I would have ruled neither claim nor concession until > he presented a corrected statement. In the meantime I would consider his > statement to be just another extraneous remark. > I would not. A claim has been made. The sentence is part of the claim statement. I do not believe you should allow him to correct this, any more than you would allow corrections to other claim statements. Of course you will ask him to elaborate, all the while keeping in mind that doubtful points will count against him. But to not consider this a claim is, IMHO, wrong. We don't know yet how many tricks he claimed, but that is no different from a player just showing his cards and saying nothing. That too happens, and that too we must rule upon. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 31 14:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: <000001c84b1d$de42be70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If what is written by Kojak below reflects the true intention of > WBFLC then Law 68B2 should be rewritten to clearly apply exclusively > when a defender concedes all remaining tricks and his partner > immediately objects. Not, IMO, what the WBFLC intended. Play continues whenever there is no explicit claim (as when a concession with an implicit claim is cancelled). > In its present form Law 68B2 applies also whenever a defender > concedes some but not all remaining tricks and his partner > immediately objects. It does indeed, concessions are cancelled. But there is no provision in Law68b2 for cancelling an explicit claim and thus L68A and L68D must still be checked. L68b2 requires us to disregard L68b1 (including the bit about a concession of X tricks being a claim of Remainder-x tricks). It really isn't hard to say "assuming L68b1 did not exist *at all* would we determine that there had been a claim?". > Maybe Kojak can answer this question which Tim has ignored till now: I haven't ignored it, it wasn't asked all that long ago and I have other things to do. It's not a difficult question and has now been answered. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 31 14:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <002801c84b76$2ecc6370$26c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I see nothing in the laws to change the principle enunciated by > the WBF on 28th October 2001: "It was agreed that when a concession > is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the > complement of the remaining tricks, if Which is fine. It covers cases where the claim exists only as a function of an attempted concession. (I too see nothing to change this principle but it should be obvious that because the law has changed the minute *must* be ratified before it has any status, under the 2007 laws, beyond guidance.) However, the 2001 minute, does not, and has never, covered "claimed a number of tricks thereby conceding...". Just read the words! "Thereby" means we *must* examine the causality. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 31 14:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000701c84bae$1de46840$dec8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. > > When one starts the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to > > concede' ....., it looks rather strange to finish with ...'no > > claim has occurred', even when that is true in itself. Which > > probably was the reason not to have it in previous versions. > > > > +=+ Readers will not have realized perhaps that in Shanghai, > under the whip to complete its task, the DSC was faced with > something like eighty matters of language to consider (some > involving principles on which we did not have full agreement). So > there was pressure and, like ton, I did not debate the omission of > 'or claim' because I had no premonition that it would be argued > subsequently as a change of the principle we had agreed in 2001. And I, for one, am not arguing that it did. The 2001 principle deals only with "concession thereby claiming". The 2007 laws follow exactly the same principle. "Claims thereby conceding" were dealt with under L68A/D in 1997, 2002, 2006 and will be in 2007 (they minute not, and had no reason to, address such beasts). "Thereby" is causative and that's just plain English. The sooner Grattan and Ton acknowledge that the better. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 31 15:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word > "concession" in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant. It might (one would also need to change the "regardless of 1. foregoing" to "regardless of A and 1 foregoing". Of course everybody (almost) would then know what it meant. Almost everybody would also know that it meant something different to what it says now. The deliberate deletion of the words "or claim" in Shanghai was a reinforcement of both: "Implicit claims are cancelled when the concession in which they are implicit is cancelled" And: "Explicit claims are never cancelled by an objection". Regardless of the above there is a matter of principle to be addressed wrt to previous WBF minutes. The purest approach, IMO, is to say that any minutes predating the 2007 laws no longer have the weight of law. (The idea being that either they have been subsumed into the new laws or discarded). TDs should not have to consult pre-2007 minutes (particularly as they are currently stored) before ruling under the new laws. Acceptable, again IMO albeit just barely, would be to say that only in cases of unchanged laws do the minutes continue to have the weight of law. In other cases the minutes can be seen as guidance to TDs. Even doing this should require the minutes to be made accessible in a single well-indexed/referenced web-accessible page/document. Truly grotesque, again IMO, is any assertion by persons with responsibility for the laws that the pre-2007 minutes have legal force even in cases where the law has changed and those minutes have not been ratified subsequently. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 15:16:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:16:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2007, at 1:09 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws > that predate > January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. Those involving TOTALLY > unchanged laws in 2007 should continue to exist. Those affecting > changed > laws are irrelevant without new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of > "administrative housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are > being > properly interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. I suppose I agree with Kojak that it is now incumbent upon the WBFLC to lock the barn door long after the horse has escaped. Shouldn't any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that predate the new laws have been reviewed for applicability -- and incorporation -- *before* the new laws were finalized?! What Kojak is saying, in effect, is that now that the new laws have been written, it's time to figure out what they are supposed to mean. Isn't that getting things a bit backwards? Have we any hope that the WBF will realize what they have done (rather, failed to do), and get it right next time? The notion that the explicit language of a newly published law can be overridden by an action of the legislative body that was taken prior to the law having been written is beyond absurd. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 31 16:02:08 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:02:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 References: <4778D4E2.9080500@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004b01c84bbe$1d220f60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:39 AM Subject: [blml] New Law 27 > Yesterday, I made the following mistake (2 days, or 9 months, too early) > > Pnr Me > 1Cl 1He > 2NT 2Cl > > over 1NT, 2Cl is asking for distribution and strength. > over 2NT, 3Cl is asking for distribution. 3C is contained within 2C. Yes. I'm sure of this one. > > Am I allowed, in the new laws, to substitute 2Cl for 3Cl? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 16:04:18 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:04:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> On Dec 31, 2007, at 3:12 AM, wrote: > I see nothing in the laws to change the principle enunciated > by the WBF on 28th October 2001: "It was agreed that when > a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, > thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if > the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, > under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same > token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has > been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.". I do. Common sense and reason dictate that the failure to enunciate the principle in question in a newly written lawbook that supercedes the one the principle was formulated with reference to must be presumed to be an explicit repudiation of the applicability that principle to the new laws. In other words, if that's what the WBFLC meant, why didn't they say so in the new law? The very existence of the 2001 minute means that they knew there was an ambiguity in the previous wording and had the words to resolve it immediately at hand. It would stretch credibility to believe that the failure to include them was nothing more than an accidental oversight, and Kojak has already made it clear that it was not, that its inclusion (in the form of the words "or claim", which certainly would have done the job) was specifically considered and rejected. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Mon Dec 31 16:14:50 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:14:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. References: <4755DE690D85C92F@mail-8-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-8.uk.tiscali.com) <000701c84bae$1de46840$dec8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Much as I have told myself that further argument in this case is a waste of time, I can't stop myself from commenting. 1. Those who wish to mesh two different words into one have yet to tell me, (unless I missed such a message) how they would actually handle an immediate objection to a concession by claimant's partner. All I've seen is a stubborn position that they are, as always, correct in whatever they say. I'd like to know EXACTLY what they would do, though I realize that some of them have preciously little experience in live rulings at the table. Please don't quote a bunch of Law numbers - just tell me in plain English how you would proceed. (Tim West-Meads has done so, I believe) 2. Grattan's excuses (and Ton's) about time pressure, "something like eighty matters of language", etc., are surprising, disheartening, and insulting. I find it hard to believe or accept that those who worked for 5 years on the Review of the Laws missed my verbally expressed gratification that the WBFLC minute would now go away. No "premonition" needed - perhaps my voice is so soft it wasn't heard. (Of course if we had tape recordings of committee meetings both in the Drafting Sub-Committee and the WBFLC you could go back and unequivocally prove things -- perish the thought!) Cheers, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "Le congres ne marche pas, il danse" > (The Congress makes no progress , > but it dances.) > Prince de Ligne > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. > > > > > >> It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the > >> word "concession" in L68B2. Then, everyone will know > >> what is meant. > > > > Sven: > > These very words were there until the last issue of the new > > laws when they were removed. Why they were removed is > > still unclear to me. > > > > > > ton: > > As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. > > When one starts the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to > > concede' ....., it looks rather strange to finish with ...'no claim > > has occurred', even when that is true in itself. Which probably > > was the reason not to have it in previous versions. > > > +=+ Readers will not have realized perhaps that in Shanghai, under > the whip to complete its task, the DSC was faced with something > like eighty matters of language to consider (some involving principles > on which we did not have full agreement). So there was pressure > and, like ton, I did not debate the omission of 'or claim' because > I had no premonition that it would be argued subsequently as a > change of the principle we had agreed in 2001. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 16:19:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:19:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <4778F107.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c84bc0$805690e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael 3> Sven Pran wrote: > > > > A more interesting question is if he said for instance "three tricks to > each > > of us". In that case I would have ruled neither claim nor concession > until > > he presented a corrected statement. In the meantime I would consider his > > statement to be just another extraneous remark. > > > > I would not. A claim has been made. The sentence is part of the claim > statement. I do not believe you should allow him to correct this, any > more than you would allow corrections to other claim statements. > Of course you will ask him to elaborate, all the while keeping in mind > that doubtful points will count against him. > > But to not consider this a claim is, IMHO, wrong. Maybe, I don't really think it matters because particularly if this happened in a serious event I would request him to make his claim/concession in an orderly way right away. (But for instance in an ordinary weekly club event I might just let him play on like I do with the player who thinks loud and says, mainly to himself, "I don't think you will get any more tricks", apparently without any intention of claiming.) > > We don't know yet how many tricks he claimed, but that is no different > from a player just showing his cards and saying nothing. That too > happens, and that too we must rule upon. Well, that _is_ a claim (and/or a concession), no question about it. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 16:22:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:22:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> Message-ID: <05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:06 AM, David Burn wrote: > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word > "concession" > in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant. Now I'm lost. Isn't that exactly what Kojak has reported the WBFLC to have considered and rejected? And wouldn't such a rejection definitively indicate that that was not what was meant? > Curiously enough, the first contribution I can remember making to > BLML was > on the topic of whether a concession of some tricks was the "same > thing as" > or merely "part of" an implied claim of the remaining tricks. DWS kept > saying that in those circumstances "a claim is a concession" meant > that they > were one and the same thing, but that was of course nonsense. But even if it were true that "a claim is a concession" it would not follow that "an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede", the latter being required for L68B2 to apply. A concession can result from an attempt to concede absent any claim, or can result from a claim absent any attempt to concede. ISTM that recognizing this solves most of the problems we've been debating in this thread, and makes relevant rulings much easier to determine and justify. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From henk at ripe.net Mon Dec 31 16:31:53 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:31:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 In-Reply-To: <004b01c84bbe$1d220f60$0701a8c0@john> References: <4778D4E2.9080500@hdw.be> <004b01c84bbe$1d220f60$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <47790B69.1080709@ripe.net> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:39 AM > Subject: [blml] New Law 27 > > >> Yesterday, I made the following mistake (2 days, or 9 months, too early) >> >> Pnr Me >> 1Cl 1He >> 2NT 2Cl >> >> over 1NT, 2Cl is asking for distribution and strength. >> over 2NT, 3Cl is asking for distribution. > > 3C is contained within 2C. Yes. I'm sure of this one. OK, now: 1 C * - 1 S 2 NT ** - 2 C *** * Polish ** 19+, 4+S, any other shape. 3C would ask for range and shortness 1 C * - 1 S 1 NT ** - 2 C *** * Polish, ** 12-14, *** asks whether opener has 4H or 3S. Is this allowed? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 16:44:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c84bc4$03b42530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > On Dec 30, 2007, at 1:09 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting > > laws that predate January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. > > Those involving TOTALLY unchanged laws in 2007 should continue > > to exist. Those affecting changed laws are irrelevant without > > new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of "administrative being > > housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are properly > > interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. > > I suppose I agree with Kojak that it is now incumbent upon the > WBFLC to lock the barn door long after the horse has escaped. > > Shouldn't any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that > predate the new laws have been reviewed for applicability -- and > incorporation -- *before* the new laws were finalized?! What Kojak > is saying, in effect, is that now that the new laws have been > written, it's time to figure out what they are supposed to mean. > Isn't that getting things a bit backwards? Have we any hope that the > WBF will realize what they have done (rather, failed to do), and get > it right next time? > > The notion that the explicit language of a newly published law can be > overridden by an action of the legislative body that was taken prior > to the law having been written is beyond absurd. Whenever a law must be interpreted because of difficulties in understanding its naked text, the first step should always be going back to the preparation of the law and investigate if considerations at that time can clarify the matter. This is obvious in legal work; I see no reason why it should not be equally obvious here. No minutes issued before January 2008 can have any immediate legal force, but they are very important as part of the sources for the final law text. It would be almost unheard of if WBFLC having the 2001 minute on Law 68B at hand had written the new Law 68B2 incorporating so much of the principles from that minute without making it absolutely clear if they did not intend to incorporate all of the minute. And an essential clause in that minute was: "no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made". I understand both Ton and Grattan now to having confirmed this. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 17:02:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:02:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Acceptable, again IMO albeit just barely, would be to say that only in > cases of unchanged laws do the minutes continue to have the weight > of law. Is that not tantamount to presuming that if a law remains unchanged, it was because the WBFLC forgot about it and neglected to review it, rather than because they reviewed it and consciously decided to leave it unchanged? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 31 17:26:18 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:26:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: <000501c84bc4$03b42530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000501c84bc4$03b42530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <1F22A8A2-B22A-45A7-9D32-DAC0A071A082@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Whenever a law must be interpreted because of difficulties in > understanding > its naked text, the first step should always be going back to the > preparation of the law and investigate if considerations at that > time can > clarify the matter. Sure. We'll just consult the public records of the deliberations of the Drafting Subcommittee. What? There isn't any public record? Oh, my. Well, the upside is blml has fodder for many hours of pointless discussion. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 31 17:43:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:43:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > It would stretch credibility to believe that the > failure to include them was nothing more than an > accidental oversight, and Kojak has already made it > clear that it was not, that its inclusion (in the > form of the words "or claim", which certainly would > have done the job) was specifically considered and > rejected. Something Grattan wrote upthread leads me to consider another scenario: in the final deliberations, someone carelessly suggested that "or claim" be removed, not considering the reason it was there in the first place, and the subcommittee carelessly agreed to do so. Seems akin to the case where a player leads low to AQ on the board, intending to finesse, and then when LHO plays the K, he plays the Q under it. Oops. Result stands. :-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 31 17:58:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:58:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred><000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> <05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005301c84bce$b39260c0$a4c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > > Now I'm lost. Isn't that exactly what Kojak has > reported the WBFLC to have considered and > rejected? And wouldn't such a rejection definitively > indicate that that was not what was meant? > +=+ There are evidently differing opinions as to why the Drafting Subcommittee (not the WBFLC) did what it did, and what was the intention. No individual can interpret the law with authority and this will remain a matter for the WBFLC at its next meeting. In the interim it will be for Zonal Authorities, or in default of them NBOs, to provide interim interpretations of the laws. Of this there is no doubt. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 31 18:16:52 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:16:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> <05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c84bd0$f05433b0$d0fc9b10$@com> [DALB] It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word "concession" in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant. [EL] Now I'm lost. Isn't that exactly what Kojak has reported the WBFLC to have considered and rejected? And wouldn't such a rejection definitively indicate that that was not what was meant? [DALB] I believe I did read some account of the words "or claim" being deleted from L68B2. But what I understand certain people to be saying is that if West says to South "I get two tricks and the rest are yours", and East then objects, the concession ("the rest are yours") is cancelled but the claim ("I get two tricks") is not. Thus, play does not continue (as L68B2 says it does) because there is an outstanding claim to be dealt with and L68D comes into force. What I understand certain other people (Grattan among them) to be saying is that in such a case both the concession and the claim are cancelled, so that play can continue under L68B2 without having to cease under L68D. If that's what they meant, that's what they ought to have said when they wrote the new Laws. [EL] But even if it were true that "a claim is a concession" it would not follow that "an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede" [DALB] Actually it would, if the word "is" in this context meant "is exactly the same thing as". But since a claim isn't exactly the same thing as a concession, despite what Herman says, there isn't much of a problem. Mind you, they ought to rewrite the whole thing. Obviously, all they really wanted to do was allow play to continue when one player throws his hand in while his partner still has (or thinks he has) some interest in proceedings. Fair enough, but what they actually did was create a quagmire. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 18:22:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:22:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: <000501c84bc4$03b42530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000501c84bc4$03b42530$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <8CE90F7B-7115-4528-A6FA-AEE9B3E2F646@starpower.net> On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> On Dec 30, 2007, at 1:09 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >> >>> I'm interested that any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting >>> laws that predate January 2008 be reviewed for applicability. >>> Those involving TOTALLY unchanged laws in 2007 should continue >>> to exist. Those affecting changed laws are irrelevant without >>> new decision by the WBFLC. This kind of "administrative being >>> housekeeping" is vital to assure that our laws are properly >>> interpreted by the WBFLC and the TDs. >> >> I suppose I agree with Kojak that it is now incumbent upon the >> WBFLC to lock the barn door long after the horse has escaped. >> >> Shouldn't any and all WBFLC minutes interpreting laws that >> predate the new laws have been reviewed for applicability -- and >> incorporation -- *before* the new laws were finalized?! What Kojak >> is saying, in effect, is that now that the new laws have been >> written, it's time to figure out what they are supposed to mean. >> Isn't that getting things a bit backwards? Have we any hope that the >> WBF will realize what they have done (rather, failed to do), and get >> it right next time? >> >> The notion that the explicit language of a newly published law can be >> overridden by an action of the legislative body that was taken prior >> to the law having been written is beyond absurd. > > Whenever a law must be interpreted because of difficulties in > understanding > its naked text, the first step should always be going back to the > preparation of the law and investigate if considerations at that > time can > clarify the matter. This is obvious in legal work; I see no reason > why it > should not be equally obvious here. > > No minutes issued before January 2008 can have any immediate legal > force, > but they are very important as part of the sources for the final > law text. > > It would be almost unheard of if WBFLC having the 2001 minute on > Law 68B at > hand had written the new Law 68B2 incorporating so much of the > principles > from that minute without making it absolutely clear if they did not > intend > to incorporate all of the minute. > > And an essential clause in that minute was: "no concession has > occurred and > by the same token neither has any claim been made". > > I understand both Ton and Grattan now to having confirmed this. Sven refutes his own argument. If the WBFLC indeed "[wrote] the new Law 68B2 incorporating so much of the principles from that minute" yet nevertheless failed to include what Sven recognizes to be the "essential clause in that minute", shouldn't that lead us to conclude that the omission from "so much of the principles" of that particular "essential clause" was the result of a deliberate decision rather than an oversight? If they had incorporated none of those "principles", i.e. had left the wording in question unchanged, then it might be credible to argue that the omission of the "essential cause" was not intended to have any bearing on the meaning of the law, but under the circumstances, it is ludicrous. If they meant the law to be read as though they had incorporated the clause from the minute, who would have been harmed by their actually incorporating the clause from the minute? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Mon Dec 31 18:28:21 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:28:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com><05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> <000801c84bd0$f05433b0$d0fc9b10$@com> Message-ID: The definition of "is"? How did Clinton get into this conversation? Thanks, Grattan for the explanation I meant and said the drafting committee, not the WBFLC obviously. Re: "Quagmire" I can't remember any problem with applying the Laws on Claims and Concessions in this regard until the WBFLC minute appeared. And even then TDs continued to do the right thing in adjudicating a result. Sounds to me like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should have applied a long time ago. See youse, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > [DALB] > > It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word > "concession" > in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant. > > [EL] > > Now I'm lost. Isn't that exactly what Kojak has reported the WBFLC to > have > considered and rejected? And wouldn't such a rejection definitively > indicate > that that was not what was meant? > > [DALB] > > I believe I did read some account of the words "or claim" being deleted > from > L68B2. But what I understand certain people to be saying is that if West > says to South "I get two tricks and the rest are yours", and East then > objects, the concession ("the rest are yours") is cancelled but the claim > ("I get two tricks") is not. Thus, play does not continue (as L68B2 says > it > does) because there is an outstanding claim to be dealt with and L68D > comes > into force. > > What I understand certain other people (Grattan among them) to be saying > is > that in such a case both the concession and the claim are cancelled, so > that > play can continue under L68B2 without having to cease under L68D. If > that's > what they meant, that's what they ought to have said when they wrote the > new > Laws. > > [EL] > > But even if it were true that "a claim is a concession" it would not > follow > that "an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede" > > [DALB] > > Actually it would, if the word "is" in this context meant "is exactly the > same thing as". But since a claim isn't exactly the same thing as a > concession, despite what Herman says, there isn't much of a problem. > > Mind you, they ought to rewrite the whole thing. Obviously, all they > really > wanted to do was allow play to continue when one player throws his hand in > while his partner still has (or thinks he has) some interest in > proceedings. > Fair enough, but what they actually did was create a quagmire. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon Dec 31 18:32:50 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:32:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred><9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Nice try, but completely off the mark on your "another scenario".. Reminds me a little of "the Texas Two-Step" from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" play. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > It would stretch credibility to believe that the > > failure to include them was nothing more than an > > accidental oversight, and Kojak has already made it > > clear that it was not, that its inclusion (in the > > form of the words "or claim", which certainly would > > have done the job) was specifically considered and > > rejected. > > Something Grattan wrote upthread leads me to consider another > scenario: in the final deliberations, someone carelessly suggested > that "or claim" be removed, not considering the reason it was there > in the first place, and the subcommittee carelessly agreed to do so. > > Seems akin to the case where a player leads low to AQ on the board, > intending to finesse, and then when LHO plays the K, he plays the Q > under it. Oops. Result stands. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 20:14:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:14:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c84be1$6435a060$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER ............... > 1. Those who wish to mesh two different words into one have yet to tell > me, > (unless I missed such a message) how they would actually handle an > immediate > objection to a concession by claimant's partner. All I've seen is a > stubborn position that they are, as always, correct in whatever they say. > I'd like to know EXACTLY what they would do, though I realize that some of > them have preciously little experience in live rulings at the table. > Please > don't quote a bunch of Law numbers - just tell me in plain English how > you > would proceed. (Tim West-Meads has done so, I believe) We have laws to handle claim and concession situations, according to my understanding of these I shall void both the concession and the claim in the situation we are discussing. I shall then let the play continue under my supervision as specified in Law 68B2 taking particular care to protect all interests of (in this case) the declaring side. I see nothing wrong with laws along any of the following lines alternative to the laws we do have. (This is not to say that I would prefer any of these alternatives over the law we have): A: When a claim or concession is contested play shall always continue under supervision by the Director who will protect all interests of the non-offending side. B: Whenever a claim or concession occurs play shall cease immediately and unconditionally, and the Director shall decide the result on that board. If the applicable laws had been according to any of these alternatives I would of course have ruled accordingly. (Remainder of OP deleted with no comments further to what I have previously presented) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 20:43:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:43:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> It would stretch credibility to believe that the >> failure to include them was nothing more than an >> accidental oversight, and Kojak has already made it >> clear that it was not, that its inclusion (in the >> form of the words "or claim", which certainly would >> have done the job) was specifically considered and >> rejected. > > Something Grattan wrote upthread leads me to consider another > scenario: in the final deliberations, someone carelessly suggested > that "or claim" be removed, not considering the reason it was there > in the first place, and the subcommittee carelessly agreed to do so. In a spontaneous fit of insanity that went unnoticed by the rest of the committee out of "carelessness"? Are they so careless as to go around striking words from their drafts at random without bothering to check to see whether they are thus affecting the meaning of what they had written? I refuse to accept that. If they changed the wording, they had to have at least *thought* they had a reason for doing so, even if they can no longer tell us what that reason might have been. When they chose to strike "or claim" from their draft, either they thought it affected the meaning of the law and decided to deliberately alter its meaning, or they thought it didn't affect the meaning of the law and decided to deliberately obfuscate its meaning. It would be nothing short of egregiously insulting to every member of that committee to assume the latter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 21:37:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > In a spontaneous fit of insanity that went unnoticed by the rest of > the committee out of "carelessness"? Are they so careless as to go > around striking words from their drafts at random without bothering > to check to see whether they are thus affecting the meaning of what > they had written? I refuse to accept that. If they changed the > wording, they had to have at least *thought* they had a reason for > doing so, even if they can no longer tell us what that reason might > have been. > > When they chose to strike "or claim" from their draft, either they > thought it affected the meaning of the law and decided to > deliberately alter its meaning, or they thought it didn't affect the > meaning of the law and decided to deliberately obfuscate its > meaning. It would be nothing short of egregiously insulting to every > member of that committee to assume the latter. Ton has given a perfectly plausible reason for what happened. That reason was to improve the language rather than to alter the reality in law 68B2. If his assertion (supported by Grattan as far as I can understand) is correct I don't think they even realized the possibility that a discussion like this could become the result of deleting those two words. What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this dispute. Sven From schoderb at msn.com Mon Dec 31 22:05:28 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:05:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. References: <000601c84be1$6435a060$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: 1. Somebody want to tell me who the "Non-offending side" is in a claim or concession situation so I can protect them? 2. Would you allow the defender who made the claim deviate from his claim statement? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. > > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > ............... > > 1. Those who wish to mesh two different words into one have yet to tell > > me, > > (unless I missed such a message) how they would actually handle an > > immediate > > objection to a concession by claimant's partner. All I've seen is a > > stubborn position that they are, as always, correct in whatever they > > say. > > I'd like to know EXACTLY what they would do, though I realize that some > > of > > them have preciously little experience in live rulings at the table. > > Please > > don't quote a bunch of Law numbers - just tell me in plain English how > > you > > would proceed. (Tim West-Meads has done so, I believe) > > We have laws to handle claim and concession situations, according to my > understanding of these I shall void both the concession and the claim in > the > situation we are discussing. I shall then let the play continue under my > supervision as specified in Law 68B2 taking particular care to protect all > interests of (in this case) the declaring side. > > I see nothing wrong with laws along any of the following lines alternative > to the laws we do have. (This is not to say that I would prefer any of > these > alternatives over the law we have): > > A: When a claim or concession is contested play shall always continue > under > supervision by the Director who will protect all interests of the > non-offending side. > > B: Whenever a claim or concession occurs play shall cease immediately and > unconditionally, and the Director shall decide the result on that board. > > If the applicable laws had been according to any of these alternatives I > would of course have ruled accordingly. > > (Remainder of OP deleted with no comments further to what I have > previously > presented) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 31 22:26:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:26:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <5A0EEAB0-984D-4626-9F14-08D1C2358104@starpower.net> On Dec 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............. >> In a spontaneous fit of insanity that went unnoticed by the rest of >> the committee out of "carelessness"? Are they so careless as to go >> around striking words from their drafts at random without bothering >> to check to see whether they are thus affecting the meaning of what >> they had written? I refuse to accept that. If they changed the >> wording, they had to have at least *thought* they had a reason for >> doing so, even if they can no longer tell us what that reason might >> have been. >> >> When they chose to strike "or claim" from their draft, either they >> thought it affected the meaning of the law and decided to >> deliberately alter its meaning, or they thought it didn't affect the >> meaning of the law and decided to deliberately obfuscate its >> meaning. It would be nothing short of egregiously insulting to every >> member of that committee to assume the latter. > > Ton has given a perfectly plausible reason for what happened. That > reason > was to improve the language rather than to alter the reality in law > 68B2. "Improve the language"?? Is anyone seriously suggesting that striking the specific reference to claims not only left the law's applicability to claims intact, but actually made it *clearer*? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 23:11:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:11:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c84bfa$1a65b740$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > 1. Somebody want to tell me who the "Non-offending side" is in a claim or > concession situation so I can protect them? Don't try to make me believe that you are serious? In claim/concession situations I consider the side making a claim or a concession an offending side as they caused a deviation from the regular progress of play: trick by trick. Their opponents are of course a non-offending side. Law 70A even says so much with the words: "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." > 2. Would you allow the defender who made the claim deviate from his claim > statement? That depends entirely upon the nature of the claim statement (and of course what UI might be present). Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 31 23:20:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:20:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <5A0EEAB0-984D-4626-9F14-08D1C2358104@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c84bfb$6c23f730$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > ............. > > Ton has given a perfectly plausible reason for what happened. > > That reason was to improve the language rather than to alter > > the reality in law 68B2. > > "Improve the language"?? Is anyone seriously suggesting that > striking the specific reference to claims not only left the law's > applicability to claims intact, but actually made it *clearer*? Apparently you haven't bothered to read Ton's post? I repeat it here for your convenience: Quote As far as I am concerned the reason has to do with language. When one starts the sentence with ...'if a defender attempts to concede' ....., it looks rather strange to finish with ...'no claim has occurred', even when that is true in itself. Which probably was the reason not to have it in previous versions. Unquote Sven